Re: [OAUTH-WG] Should registration request be form-urlencoded or JSON?
Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com> Mon, 04 February 2013 21:47 UTC
Return-Path: <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
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 84F6121F85D2 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Feb 2013 13:47:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 7Vw8BJjCka4v for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Feb 2013 13:47:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from na01-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (na01-bl2-obe.ptr.protection.outlook.com [65.55.169.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C2E321F85B8 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Feb 2013 13:47:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from BY2FFO11FD012.protection.gbl (10.1.15.203) by BY2FFO11HUB013.protection.gbl (10.1.14.85) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.609.9; Mon, 4 Feb 2013 21:47:35 +0000
Received: from TK5EX14HUBC104.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (131.107.125.37) by BY2FFO11FD012.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.1.14.130) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.609.9 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 4 Feb 2013 21:47:35 +0000
Received: from TK5EX14MBXC284.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([169.254.1.132]) by TK5EX14HUBC104.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.80.25]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.003; Mon, 4 Feb 2013 21:46:45 +0000
From: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
To: "Richer, Justin P." <jricher@mitre.org>
Thread-Topic: [OAUTH-WG] Should registration request be form-urlencoded or JSON?
Thread-Index: Ac4DHiIcTE3oals3S1ip2f/AR/tbdwAKyDGAAAo364A=
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2013 21:46:44 +0000
Message-ID: <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B168042967394367411337@TK5EX14MBXC284.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B1680429673943674111BE@TK5EX14MBXC284.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <B33BFB58CCC8BE4998958016839DE27E068866A0@IMCMBX01.MITRE.ORG>
In-Reply-To: <B33BFB58CCC8BE4998958016839DE27E068866A0@IMCMBX01.MITRE.ORG>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.78]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B168042967394367411337TK5EX14MBXC284r_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:131.107.125.37; CTRY:US; IPV:CAL; IPV:NLI; EFV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; SFS:(377454001)(199002)(189002)(24454001)(50986001)(33656001)(47976001)(51856001)(47736001)(5343655001)(5343635001)(512954001)(20776003)(79102001)(4396001)(56816002)(63696002)(49866001)(46102001)(74502001)(15202345001)(31966008)(16236675001)(77982001)(59766001)(47446002)(44976002)(74662001)(55846006)(53806001)(76482001)(16406001)(56776001)(54356001)(54316002); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:BY2FFO11HUB013; H:TK5EX14HUBC104.redmond.corp.microsoft.com; RD:InfoDomainNonexistent; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.onmicrosoft.com
X-Forefront-PRVS: 07473990A5
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 21:47:50 -0000
I'm not proposing that we boil the ocean. "Diving in with both feet and define a full RESTful API with all appropriate verbs and CRUD ops" is an almost sure way to build a complicated spec, most of which isn't needed, and to have it take a long time. Everything in the current OpenID Registration spec is motivated by an actual use case. Stuff that isn't isn't in the spec. That's nearly true of the closely-related OAuth Registration spec, with what I believe to be a few exceptions. (Yes, we should harmonize those differences - hopefully based upon real use cases.) I was only proposing that we answer the single question of whether we're using the right input format or not. I hope we can keep the discussion to that topic and not use it to generate a passel of new work items as a side effect. -- Mike From: Richer, Justin P. [mailto:jricher@mitre.org] Sent: Monday, February 04, 2013 1:34 PM To: Mike Jones Cc: oauth@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Should registration request be form-urlencoded or JSON? For history, the original UMA registration spec from whence this all grew was JSON-in and JSON-out. It's feeling like this is coming back around. Pro: - more REST-ish (particularly if we use real REST style like URL templates and verbs) - consistent data structures - possible use of rich client data structures like lists and sub-objects Con: - unlike the rest of OAuth, which is form-in, JSON-out - major change from existing code - possible overhead for existing OAuth libraries which haven't had to deal with JSON from clients If we're going to do this, we should dive in with both feet and define a full RESTful API with all appropriate verbs and CRUD ops, and define it at the OAuth DynReg level as well. -- 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
- [OAUTH-WG] Should registration request be form-ur… Mike Jones
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Should registration request be for… Richer, Justin P.
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Should registration request be for… Richer, Justin P.
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Should registration request be for… Mike Jones
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Should registration request be for… Tim Bray
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Should registration request be for… John Bradley
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Should registration request be for… Dale Olds
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Should registration request be for… Justin Richer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Should registration request be for… Justin Richer