Re: [OAUTH-WG] Consistency in access token parameter
Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com> Tue, 20 April 2010 15:04 UTC
Return-Path: <eran@hueniverse.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 7BA9028C11E for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Apr 2010 08:04:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.474
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.474 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.125, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 zvVTJQfum1on for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Apr 2010 08:04:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p3plex1out02.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plex1out02.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [72.167.180.18]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id C76533A6AE4 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Apr 2010 08:04:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 5845 invoked from network); 20 Apr 2010 15:04:18 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.ex1.secureserver.net) (72.167.180.21) by p3plex1out02.prod.phx3.secureserver.net with SMTP; 20 Apr 2010 15:04:18 -0000
Received: from P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET ([10.6.135.20]) by P3PW5EX1HT003.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET ([72.167.180.21]) with mapi; Tue, 20 Apr 2010 08:04:11 -0700
From: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
To: Luke Shepard <lshepard@facebook.com>, "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 08:04:18 -0700
Thread-Topic: Consistency in access token parameter
Thread-Index: AcrgSm+6UKont5YdTGazxhgA27Mu7AAEr7ewAA8jqNA=
Message-ID: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E723438E5C7F456@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>
References: <C7F1D1FC.32809%eran@hueniverse.com> <4BCD3B85.3080809@lodderstedt.net> <2513A610118CC14C8E622C376C8DEC93D54D66DEAB@SC-MBXC1.TheFacebook.com>
In-Reply-To: <2513A610118CC14C8E622C376C8DEC93D54D66DEAB@SC-MBXC1.TheFacebook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Consistency in access token parameter
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: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 15:04:29 -0000
There is an explanation (I'm not defending it, just explaining). In the flow endpoint I chose 'access_token' over token because of the refresh token. It seems better to talk about two different kinds of tokens than to have one generic 'token' and one with special meaning 'refresh_token'. The protected resource endpoint is the only place I agree requires a prefix because it always intrudes on another namespace or platform and the likelihood of a conflict is high. I used 'oauth_token' instead of 'oauth_access_token' for brevity thinking that it should be trivial to figure out what to put there (the only other option is a refresh token which isn't likely to be confused here). The header uses 'token' because it is a generic authentication scheme which doesn't mandate you use the OAuth flows to get a token. This is the only place I feel strongly about not changing it. Feel free to propose new names. EHL > -----Original Message----- > From: oauth-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Luke Shepard > Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 12:46 AM > To: oauth@ietf.org > Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Consistency in access token parameter > > There are potentially three names for access tokens in this spec: > > - token > - access_token > - oauth_token > > You hit the /oauth/access_token endpoint, and get back access_token=blah. > Then you take that string and pass it to the protected resource as > oauth_token=blah. > > Developers that have prototyped things over here have found this to be > confusing. It's simpler to just take the same named param everywhere. > > I vote that one of two things happen: > > 1/ Return oauth_token from the access token endpoint. > 2/ Accept access_token on the protected resource endpoint. > 3/ Return "token" (and still "refresh_token") from the access_token > endpoint, and accept "token" on the protected resource. > > I know there will be infinite debate about the right way to do this, but just > wanted some thoughts for now. I will probably choose #2 as that seems most > explicit, even though it's a few more characters. > > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > OAuth@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
- [OAUTH-WG] 'Scope' parameter proposal Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] 'Scope' parameter proposal Luke Shepard
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] 'Scope' parameter proposal Marius Scurtescu
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] 'Scope' parameter proposal Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] 'Scope' parameter proposal Torsten Lodderstedt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] 'Scope' parameter proposal Marius Scurtescu
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] 'Scope' parameter proposal Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] 'Scope' parameter proposal David Recordon
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] 'Scope' parameter proposal John Kemp
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] 'Scope' parameter proposal Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] 'Scope' parameter proposal John Kemp
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] 'Scope' parameter proposal Marius Scurtescu
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] 'Scope' parameter proposal Dick Hardt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] 'Scope' parameter proposal Manger, James H
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] 'Scope' parameter proposal Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] 'Scope' parameter proposal Torsten Lodderstedt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] 'Scope' parameter proposal Torsten Lodderstedt
- [OAUTH-WG] Consistency in access token parameter Luke Shepard
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Consistency in access token parame… Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] 'Scope' parameter proposal Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] 'Scope' parameter proposal Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] 'Scope' parameter proposal Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] 'Scope' parameter proposal Joseph Smarr
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Consistency in access token parame… Joseph Smarr
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Consistency in access token parame… Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] 'Scope' parameter proposal Eve Maler
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] 'Scope' parameter proposal Manger, James H
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] 'Scope' parameter proposal John Kemp
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] 'Scope' parameter proposal Chasen Le Hara
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] 'Scope' parameter proposal Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] 'Scope' parameter proposal Chasen Le Hara
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] 'Scope' parameter proposal Brian Eaton
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] 'Scope' parameter proposal Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] 'Scope' parameter proposal Brian Eaton
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] 'Scope' parameter proposal Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] 'Scope' parameter proposal Brian Eaton
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] 'Scope' parameter proposal Brian Eaton
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] 'Scope' parameter proposal Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] 'Scope' parameter proposal Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] 'Scope' parameter proposal John Kemp
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] 'Scope' parameter proposal Brian Eaton
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] 'Scope' parameter proposal Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] 'Scope' parameter proposal Chasen Le Hara
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] 'Scope' parameter proposal Brian Eaton
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] 'Scope' parameter proposal Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] 'Scope' parameter proposal Eve Maler
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] 'Scope' parameter proposal Manger, James H
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] 'Scope' parameter proposal Torsten Lodderstedt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] 'Scope' parameter proposal Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] 'Scope' parameter proposal Brian Eaton
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] 'Scope' parameter proposal Torsten Lodderstedt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] 'Scope' parameter proposal John Panzer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] 'Scope' parameter proposal Keenan, Bill
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] 'Scope' parameter proposal Luke Shepard