IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0

Hans Granqvist <hans@granqvist.com> Wed, 24 March 2010 16:54 UTC

Return-Path: <hans@granqvist.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 20F763A6C61 for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:54:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.753
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.753 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622]
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 TsixqhOGjXa3 for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:54:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pz0-f185.google.com (mail-pz0-f185.google.com [209.85.222.185]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 071813A6C5E for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:54:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pzk15 with SMTP id 15so531675pzk.29 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:54:52 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.142.60.21 with SMTP id i21mr3252374wfa.132.1269449691637; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:54:51 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <146E0BB4-6ACD-4861-958D-948CB418BC6C@gmail.com>
References: <fd6741651003231047s419db471x98098a2e46aab168@mail.gmail.com> <C7CE5F03.28E6%cmortimore@salesforce.com> <fd6741651003231210j472652dayd2cb909605e93f9@mail.gmail.com> <146E0BB4-6ACD-4861-958D-948CB418BC6C@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:54:51 -0700
Message-ID: <c47f68be1003240954u56067426mb475ac0f5fb96284@mail.gmail.com>
From: Hans Granqvist <hans@granqvist.com>
To: Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: OAuth WG <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0
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, 24 Mar 2010 16:54:35 -0000

On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 9:44 PM, Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
> By keeping all profiles in one document, someone easily understands the different applications of the technology, and when a different use case comes up, they know it is available rather than having to look at a different document.

Yes. One doc rules since the spec + its delta changes are immediately obvious.

Multiple docs lead to unnecessary restating of facts, potential
redefinitions of terms, versioning and feature creep clashes, visual
hiding of complexity, scopes, etc. + you never know if you have the
whole set of docs. Think WS-*.

-Hans

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email