IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OAUTH-WG] application/x-www-form-urlencoded vs JSON (Proposal)

Mike Moore <blowmage@gmail.com> Fri, 30 April 2010 17:24 UTC

Return-Path: <blowmage@gmail.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 EE5E228C17E for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 10:24:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 VgU1ugeZM1FY for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 10:24:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pw0-f44.google.com (mail-pw0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A172D28C0F2 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 10:22:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pwj2 with SMTP id 2so275780pwj.31 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 10:22:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=otA5zAEN/7AP3xo2Qk5NsmOtcdrk+U6JJx+r7qDb/g8=; b=hGC0OSe5/h9Mwugy5X1mYAcIq3Vv3VN2mqcjBmYV9u4r+0AZDNQscPax0m9C+fiX/b 5aYh8eYD4aJ3KJ4Isqh0vWOWgpiFRRqPEnbfK6zZvPcRvkPA+Se7q2L63ix0LIDQy+oa upCC30kHF8y8Jrmr8YKLkN5wc14gF1UyyMfcU=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=xKG/0WnZu2hVZtIlaE02lrG+VYOxaV6FquW9ycBJPWW20mp7HooMfSTO5k1K/cps2F XrcZ3SFZoiuuw0kBK8ZY/esM7h45T1k9WH5SPkayau+ZZN+Jr/i/gZVBhjIdSIesbuN0 2AlGGNbzAWsw40HrGCqaCHrYLMkM1tHomczbA=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.141.107.11 with SMTP id j11mr1132366rvm.199.1272648137317; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 10:22:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.140.158.13 with HTTP; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 10:22:17 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E723439323D03A5@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>
References: <9890332F-E759-4E63-96FE-DB3071194D84@gmail.com> <s2zc334d54e1004281425x5e714eebwcd5a91af593a62ac@mail.gmail.com> <v2j68fba5c51004282044o3a5f96cfucb1157d3884d8cd2@mail.gmail.com> <4BD9E1E3.7060107@lodderstedt.net> <7C01E631FF4B654FA1E783F1C0265F8C4A3EF0B0@TK5EX14MBXC115.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <z2yf5bedd151004291440g17693f8du9e19a649bef925e4@mail.gmail.com> <w2odaf5b9571004291509x8895a73k384a4b4ddb12b794@mail.gmail.com> <20100430105935.20255m8kdythy6sc@webmail.df.eu> <7C01E631FF4B654FA1E783F1C0265F8C4A402461@TK5EX14MBXC117.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E723439323D03A5@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 11:22:17 -0600
Message-ID: <v2tf5bedd151004301022mea573a75v4e8e2eb34527bdcb@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Moore <blowmage@gmail.com>
To: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000e0cd13a84261f5f0485777cb7"
Cc: "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] application/x-www-form-urlencoded vs JSON (Proposal)
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: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 17:24:07 -0000

On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>wrote:

> I don't think the two are related. Request format is based on common HTTP
> request practice and is built-in every web client. Adding a list of
> parameters to a request URI is trivial. Response format on the other hand is
> less consistent on the client and we can improve this by specifying a
> well-define serialization.
>

Oops, I misread Yaron's message. I thought this was only about the response
format. I agree the request format should stay as it is.


> I don't care about which format to use or whether we support more than one.
>

Agreed.


> EHL

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email