Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposal for single JSON response format

Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@gmail.com> Mon, 14 June 2010 21:12 UTC

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=aPE2N5pRhsXfEBPQEVKBJqbbmXOacg7lxSf0shVD+GsQ16jPYkidhNPGO9uc7y+7Me SixiMJc5w49cRPHyjvV4qi2cp0y9aPq3c03t7LgsjUV0wHNHxzlmR5QlF/Y5Ml+sDQ71 bFhevJ9RM2flgt5/Ym8oSHnBVDyGQE2r4HZZg=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTin--ZXXbS3fefVYUhb9Xw37JihqlvIFfgTipGjo@mail.gmail.com>
References: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E72343B3EAF73EF@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET> <C10D643A-9A1D-4BCE-B115-003E7051E188@photobucket.com> <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E72343B3EBB66E4@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET> <AANLkTin--ZXXbS3fefVYUhb9Xw37JihqlvIFfgTipGjo@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 14:12:04 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTimiVm9L-wiS6_opd0j6Fvd3hFWkXz-5-TYqVgNr@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@gmail.com>
To: Brian Eaton <beaton@google.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001636d34bfecf3d32048903f0a7"
Cc: "OAuth WG (oauth@ietf.org)" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposal for single JSON response format
Precedence: list

+1 (JSON in direct response, separate discussion on redirect response)

On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 10:15 AM, Brian Eaton <beaton@google.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
> wrote:
> > So far we have 16 people supporting using JSON as the only response
> format
> > for the token endpoint with no objections. Draft -07 reflects this
> change. I am
> > considering this matter closed, but if someone has a late objection, feel
> free to raise it.
> >
> > As for using JSON in the fragment or query of the end-user authorization
> > endpoint response, two people voiced specific objections to that. For
> now,
> > -07 contains an editorial note about that option (using JSON). I think it
> is
> > worth further (separate) discussion.
>
> Sounds good to me.
>
> (I completely missed that the proposal was to use JSON in redirect
> URLs.  Evan, thanks for catching that, and Eran, thanks for flagging
> it as something that requires more discussion.)
>
> Cheers,
> Brian
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>

[OAUTH-WG] Proposal for single JSON response form… Eran Hammer-Lahav
Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposal for single JSON response … Justin Hart
Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposal for single JSON response … Eran Hammer-Lahav
Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposal for single JSON response … Brian Eaton
Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposal for single JSON response … Dick Hardt
Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposal for single JSON response … Dick Hardt
Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposal for single JSON response … Michael D Adams
Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposal for single JSON response … David Recordon
Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposal for single JSON response … Justin Richer
Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposal for single JSON response … Torsten Lodderstedt
Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposal for single JSON response … Chuck Mortimore
Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposal for single JSON response … Brian Eaton
Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposal for single JSON response … Nat
Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposal for single JSON response … Manger, James H
Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposal for single JSON response … Luke Shepard
Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposal for single JSON response … Naitik Shah
Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposal for single JSON response … Robert Sayre
Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposal for single JSON response … Evan Gilbert
Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposal for single JSON response … Eran Hammer-Lahav
Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposal for single JSON response … Evan Gilbert
Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposal for single JSON response … Dick Hardt
Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposal for single JSON response … Evan Gilbert
Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposal for single JSON response … Dick Hardt
Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposal for single JSON response … Eran Hammer-Lahav
Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposal for single JSON response … Evan Gilbert
Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposal for single JSON response … Dirk Balfanz