IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: prefixing parameters with oauth_

Evan Gilbert <uidude@google.com> Mon, 19 April 2010 17:28 UTC

Return-Path: <uidude@google.com>
X-Original-To: oauth@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3EEE3A6980 for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 10:28:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.703
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.703 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.273, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KqM41T6z2-fZ for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 10:28:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [216.239.44.51]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 074103A6AF4 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 10:24:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hpaq11.eem.corp.google.com (hpaq11.eem.corp.google.com [10.3.21.11]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id o3JHOcZI030251 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 10:24:38 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1271697878; bh=nMmwdXX1QSHD7W11jyQSR/+KiOA=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=TwWIknUof3Ed3hvZQa/AOt4MuGd6d1MqZsMgVOpyQDCKyHPaGb4gEi51+0NRHIm0k l05umRxfguJ8LDT2BXxTg==
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id: subject:to:cc:content-type:x-system-of-record; b=EujRKDb3sxWla2NOghFwLYvsY4tFTnfdJ0mPDFrRBUZYbCSPSD8GhqdqhrkjnWpyI DyKhGJOpMQTR2unUB29Iw==
Received: from qyk29 (qyk29.prod.google.com [10.241.83.157]) by hpaq11.eem.corp.google.com with ESMTP id o3JHMoDe025090 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 19:24:36 +0200
Received: by qyk29 with SMTP id 29so5668470qyk.2 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 10:24:36 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.16.148 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 10:24:12 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <i2m74caaad21004191019x74a0cd2erb22093cfd9271070@mail.gmail.com>
References: <14411661-A227-4DCA-86B3-A9C5FB8055D7@gmail.com> <z2m74caaad21004182104g3c6d08b1m6aa7c815bce7d558@mail.gmail.com> <046B4F5D-A58E-4D78-AA01-A85BFB76C6EA@gmail.com> <l2kc8689b661004190728l44977e21m82e5cc579031fa00@mail.gmail.com> <i2m74caaad21004191019x74a0cd2erb22093cfd9271070@mail.gmail.com>
From: Evan Gilbert <uidude@google.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 10:24:12 -0700
Received: by 10.229.190.133 with SMTP id di5mr3136364qcb.23.1271697876403; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 10:24:36 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <o2tc8689b661004191024n36c74d0cif957ce6698b32a8b@mail.gmail.com>
To: Marius Scurtescu <mscurtescu@google.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0016361e882a2f623b04849a3c1b"
X-System-Of-Record: true
Cc: Marius Scurtescu <marius.scurtescu@gmail.com>, OAuth WG <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: prefixing parameters with oauth_
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <oauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth>
List-Post: <mailto:oauth@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 17:28:40 -0000

On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Marius Scurtescu <mscurtescu@google.com>wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 7:28 AM, Evan Gilbert <uidude@google.com> wrote:
> > I have a preference to *not* have the "oauth_" prefix on parameters when
> > redirecting back, but could be convinced.
> > The argument about collisions makes sense, but I think there are no known
> > conflicts and you can always add a redirection layer if a conflict arises
> in
> > the future and a web serving framework is unwilling to change.
> > (I've become less of a fan of namespacing over the years - my default has
> > switched to waiting until there is a known conflict to solve)
>
> If the conflict is found after the spec is defined then it is too late.
>

As I mentioned, the client can just set up a redirect.


>
> In many cases namespaces are needed, regardless if we like them or
> not. A prefix is a very weak namespace, but in this case extremely
> useful IMO.
>

The question is whether this is a case in which namespaces are needed.


>
> Marius
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email