IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Versioning

Marius Scurtescu <mscurtescu@google.com> Thu, 01 July 2010 19:26 UTC

Return-Path: <mscurtescu@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 795093A6A3B for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Jul 2010 12:26:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.566
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.566 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.411, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, 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 1jndNhxKasEx for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Jul 2010 12:26:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [74.125.121.35]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C0383A6A25 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Jul 2010 12:26:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kpbe20.cbf.corp.google.com (kpbe20.cbf.corp.google.com [172.25.105.84]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id o61JQFdH020899 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Jul 2010 12:26:16 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1278012376; bh=xSOB3aSa92qMpd/j5eY50yEfAds=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=oTpC+E63GYNNNBG1cGGgLuTGyYFSS/zRm5jh/8CDHbkQHSkzYWRVmMeH2n2Y7qf+0 ae9fz1WYUpbNDxcf+XvTw==
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=rOaPesQKJqw/pt3heiy6b7vBKmt8/h8Ao8UiY8+ywCGiY6V7Iam9er5b6YUn5Ik6V ng5iSAyBoSXvICSlxl4VQ==
Received: from gyg4 (gyg4.prod.google.com [10.243.50.132]) by kpbe20.cbf.corp.google.com with ESMTP id o61JPuDb022858 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Jul 2010 12:26:14 -0700
Received: by gyg4 with SMTP id 4so1631518gyg.12 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 01 Jul 2010 12:26:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.101.145.16 with SMTP id x16mr13257079ann.226.1278012374257; Thu, 01 Jul 2010 12:26:14 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.101.132.22 with HTTP; Thu, 1 Jul 2010 12:25:54 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1278011235.28743.223.camel@localhost.localdomain>
References: <4C2C6D4A.5010401@cdatazone.org> <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E72343B3ED4C3E6@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET> <012AB2B223CB3F4BB846962876F47217059B693B@SNV-EXVS08.ds.corp.yahoo.com> <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E72343B3ED4C454@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET> <AANLkTikjW5OqYJIzwxrooAmHoWR5tNX1522TTBLH5rBT@mail.gmail.com> <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E72343B3ED4C475@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET> <AANLkTilTDOVNjJw9K0ZismTzbbNeuVcEBktE-8ojDfVR@mail.gmail.com> <012AB2B223CB3F4BB846962876F47217059B694F@SNV-EXVS08.ds.corp.yahoo.com> <AANLkTikZg5FlHsSCVaNJaF9qXL8x7iz9HPImXeJZqLWC@mail.gmail.com> <1278011235.28743.223.camel@localhost.localdomain>
From: Marius Scurtescu <mscurtescu@google.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2010 12:25:54 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTinV8TT5gWzFYE88DJsEZS8Wv3dy_dPlRC-TaByp@mail.gmail.com>
To: Justin Richer <jricher@mitre.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
X-System-Of-Record: true
Cc: oauth@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Versioning
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: Thu, 01 Jul 2010 19:26:10 -0000

On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 12:07 PM, Justin Richer <jricher@mitre.org> wrote:
> OAuth tokens as a form-encoded element in a post body? Yes. Keep it.

Just curious. What use case would require that the access token is put
in the post body as opposed to an http header when accessing a
protected resource?

Marius

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status