Re: [OAUTH-WG] register prefixes as opposed to full parameter names
Marius Scurtescu <mscurtescu@google.com> Wed, 07 July 2010 05:25 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 2F8723A6873 for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Jul 2010 22:25:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 WBAuk4UtX6zd for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Jul 2010 22:25:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [74.125.121.35]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 601723A68F1 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Jul 2010 22:25:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kpbe19.cbf.corp.google.com (kpbe19.cbf.corp.google.com [172.25.105.83]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id o675PBaM001431 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Jul 2010 22:25:11 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1278480311; bh=KpI/SR2CqOSRoBiI+2NYDOxyPaU=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=njeSiDULSYz76df+IfmpzG9MqJamaU48n+eihWybEntnGUoxll5LmBWMru/xGAC8C L9Uh47FzYlisSIZON72wQ==
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=reBdmnLj+QpD/acBQc/iYB6Rtd0NFLI7IF92BljPEMF5WntFTNPkWPUFf5uga6C5E gQ7PFo2VY8fyYWUC+3bQg==
Received: from yxt3 (yxt3.prod.google.com [10.190.5.195]) by kpbe19.cbf.corp.google.com with ESMTP id o675PAlx003832 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Jul 2010 22:25:10 -0700
Received: by yxt3 with SMTP id 3so500845yxt.2 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 06 Jul 2010 22:25:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.100.109.9 with SMTP id h9mr5850454anc.140.1278480309163; Tue, 06 Jul 2010 22:25:09 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.100.93.3 with HTTP; Tue, 6 Jul 2010 22:24:49 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimsxRHsXggcEsQhgD04YgbdUlrm_rojSi_SLc-X@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1278439815.2445.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> <C858C2B1.36C16%eran@hueniverse.com> <AANLkTimWZugW68Gkg_CCYZL8TUIbtaNEAlQS7cMTTSZV@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimsxRHsXggcEsQhgD04YgbdUlrm_rojSi_SLc-X@mail.gmail.com>
From: Marius Scurtescu <mscurtescu@google.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2010 22:24:49 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTikDx54ypvWMlZXGlgXsBi3wErcs3-SxO2hYVQYW@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael D Adams <mike@automattic.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
X-System-Of-Record: true
Cc: OAuth WG <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] register prefixes as opposed to full parameter names
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: Wed, 07 Jul 2010 05:25:26 -0000
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 10:18 PM, Michael D Adams <mike@automattic.com> wrote: >>> If there are actual requirements for using OAuth 2.0 with such systems, we >>> should discuss these, but it would be silly for us to architect our work >>> based on the limitations of random platforms. >> >> I don't think these are random at all. MediaWiki, Drupal, WordPress, >> to name a few, are major platforms. > > For section 6.2 (query parameters on the end-user authorization and > token endpoints), this should not be an issue for WordPress. > > For section 6.3 (header parameters), this should not be an issue for WordPress. This is not an issue because whatever query parameter WordPress is using does not collide with the core OAuth 2 parameters? Or because WordPress is not using query parameters? Marius
- [OAUTH-WG] register prefixes as opposed to full p… Marius Scurtescu
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] register prefixes as opposed to fu… Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] register prefixes as opposed to fu… Marius Scurtescu
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] register prefixes as opposed to fu… Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] register prefixes as opposed to fu… Marius Scurtescu
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] register prefixes as opposed to fu… Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] register prefixes as opposed to fu… Marius Scurtescu
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] register prefixes as opposed to fu… Justin Richer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] register prefixes as opposed to fu… Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] register prefixes as opposed to fu… William Mills
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] register prefixes as opposed to fu… Marius Scurtescu
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] register prefixes as opposed to fu… Michael D Adams
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] register prefixes as opposed to fu… Marius Scurtescu
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] register prefixes as opposed to fu… Michael D Adams
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] register prefixes as opposed to fu… Michael D Adams
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] register prefixes as opposed to fu… Marius Scurtescu
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] register prefixes as opposed to fu… Michael D Adams