IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Should registration request be form-urlencoded or JSON?

"Richer, Justin P." <jricher@mitre.org> Mon, 04 February 2013 21:35 UTC

Return-Path: <jricher@mitre.org>
X-Original-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E6C821F8B14 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Feb 2013 13:35:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.563
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.563 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.035, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2pCF050-G7ah for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Feb 2013 13:35:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpksrv1.mitre.org (smtpksrv1.mitre.org [198.49.146.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5EEF21F8AF2 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Feb 2013 13:35:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpksrv1.mitre.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 6B7001F0B99; Mon, 4 Feb 2013 16:35:51 -0500 (EST)
Received: from IMCCAS02.MITRE.ORG (imccas02.mitre.org [129.83.29.79]) by smtpksrv1.mitre.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C76A1F0654; Mon, 4 Feb 2013 16:35:51 -0500 (EST)
Received: from IMCMBX01.MITRE.ORG ([169.254.1.25]) by IMCCAS02.MITRE.ORG ([129.83.29.69]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Mon, 4 Feb 2013 16:35:51 -0500
From: "Richer, Justin P." <jricher@mitre.org>
To: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
Thread-Topic: [OAUTH-WG] Should registration request be form-urlencoded or JSON?
Thread-Index: Ac4DHiIcTE3oals3S1ip2f/AR/tbdwAK2CMA
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2013 21:35:50 +0000
Message-ID: <B33BFB58CCC8BE4998958016839DE27E068866BF@IMCMBX01.MITRE.ORG>
References: <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B1680429673943674111BE@TK5EX14MBXC284.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B1680429673943674111BE@TK5EX14MBXC284.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [172.31.48.118]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B33BFB58CCC8BE4998958016839DE27E068866BFIMCMBX01MITREOR_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Should registration request be form-urlencoded or JSON?
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <oauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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, 04 Feb 2013 21:35:52 -0000

Additionally:

This begs the question, why not just do SCIM here? CloudFoundry's UAA has a SCIM class for OAuth clients that they use for dynamic registration today.

 -- Justin


On Feb 4, 2013, at 4:25 PM, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com<mailto:Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>>
 wrote:

Now that we're returning the registration state as JSON, it's pretty inconsistent for the registration request to instead be form-url-encoded. The case can be made for switching to JSON now - especially in light of possibly wanting to convey some structured information at registration time.
I realize that this is a big change, but if we're going to do it, we should do it now.
As a precedent, apparently SCIM requests are JSON, rather than form-url-encoded.

                                                                -- Mike

_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org<mailto:OAuth@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email