Re: [OAUTH-WG] application/x-www-form-urlencoded vs JSON (Proposal)

Mike Moore <blowmage@gmail.com> Fri, 30 April 2010 16:12 UTC

Return-Path: <blowmage@gmail.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 5E8C63A6A40 for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:12:50 -0700 (PDT)
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=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 bC7XLP8i1N6D for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:12:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pw0-f44.google.com (mail-pw0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7A0C3A6B50 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:12:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pwj2 with SMTP id 2so230593pwj.31 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:12:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=Xc6rvgf4ySXjO7VVzpls7Pmuq1efkaTTnF0agJ6J15g=; b=wIMOgqzEV5JP2R5jl39dbJiwqAaStMAMdduYuK1Zo0+NvXfGzDaUyGxDs/Ruo8j3dr BUM8Bu0NWHCey6Q2lqY2GSmKKN8qv/Zd69ZH5IxqWHQ253dZYHgfvwednwQfczuNrahA 4+ga+AM53byz1k1K2qmd/4dy7+UroL5ZEnYRY=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=rRrwx1CrCMIylPlq+bBnOzu9GU3y9qqQ9qzMRQnmZC8DMlSHKCAhdMqf+cnlRm7l0S fQr8ElgFtHC59R+9L36F9dz7wSyZGbk86Vm+dnXC8SZYY7C+bp2GIAO36LZgW2+RtD1U OBo9+04Ud2a91ekIj8q3Wm+545stBR7lieELo=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.141.107.5 with SMTP id j5mr1088066rvm.105.1272643952493; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:12:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.140.158.13 with HTTP; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:12:32 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <7C01E631FF4B654FA1E783F1C0265F8C4A402461@TK5EX14MBXC117.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <9890332F-E759-4E63-96FE-DB3071194D84@gmail.com> <4BD8869A.2080403@lodderstedt.net> <s2zc334d54e1004281425x5e714eebwcd5a91af593a62ac@mail.gmail.com> <v2j68fba5c51004282044o3a5f96cfucb1157d3884d8cd2@mail.gmail.com> <4BD9E1E3.7060107@lodderstedt.net> <7C01E631FF4B654FA1E783F1C0265F8C4A3EF0B0@TK5EX14MBXC115.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <z2yf5bedd151004291440g17693f8du9e19a649bef925e4@mail.gmail.com> <w2odaf5b9571004291509x8895a73k384a4b4ddb12b794@mail.gmail.com> <20100430105935.20255m8kdythy6sc@webmail.df.eu> <7C01E631FF4B654FA1E783F1C0265F8C4A402461@TK5EX14MBXC117.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 10:12:32 -0600
Message-ID: <w2pf5bedd151004300912ja2c2d29ftdae1f235b0a7a569@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Moore <blowmage@gmail.com>
To: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000e0cd13b6ab6c45b0485768275"
Cc: "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] application/x-www-form-urlencoded vs JSON (Proposal)
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: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 16:12:50 -0000

I fully agree with Yaron. My preference for x-www-form-urlencoded is slight,
and mostly because I haven't seen a compelling reason to change. I'm fine
with choosing JSON (or even XML) as long as there is one format.

On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 10:02 AM, Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com> wrote:

> I actually have a preference for application/x-www-form-urlencoded but it's
> not overwhelming, the key thing I believe we need to do is have exactly one
> request/response format. In other words, I don't believe we should use one
> format for requests and another for responses. Just pick one for both.
>        Thanks,
>                 Yaron
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: oauth-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> > Of Torsten Lodderstedt
> > Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 2:00 AM
> > To: Brian Eaton
> > Cc: oauth@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] application/x-www-form-urlencoded vs JSON
> > (Proposal)
> >
> >
> > Zitat von Brian Eaton <beaton@google.com>:
> >
> > > On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Mike Moore <blowmage@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >> On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 2:49 PM, Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Can we please just have one format, not 3? The more choices we give
> > >>> the more interoperability suffers.
> > >
> > > Yes.  The number of parsers needed to make a working system is
> > > important.  The spec has too many already.
> > >
> > > I'd like to see authorization servers returning JSON or XML, since
> > > that's what the resource servers are doing.
> > >
> > > ...and given a choice between JSON and XML, I'd pick JSON.
> > >
> >
> > I agree. At Deutsche Telekom, we try to align our authorization APIs with
> the
> > APIs provided by the resource servers. Authorization is "just" a small,
> but
> > important, portion of the overall process and aligning it with the rest
> > increases acceptance and decreases error rate.
> >
> > None of the APIs we provide uses form encoding, most of them use JSON,
> > some XML.
> > Based on that observation I would like to see at least JSON support in
> OAuth.
> > So JSON as the only would be fine with me.
> >
> > My proposal is based on the observation that the WG did not come to a
> > consensus about the one and only format.
> >
> > I have collected the following opinions from the thread:
> >
> > pro additional support for JSON and XML - Marius Scurtescu, John Jawed,
> > Richard Barnes, Brian Eaton, Torsten Lodderstedt pro additional support
> for
> > JSON - Dick Hardt (initiated the thread), Joseph Smarr still support
> > application/x-www-form-urlencoded (unclear whether
> > exclusively) - David Recordon, Gaurav Rastogi one format only (preference
> > unclear) - Yaron Goland JSON as the only format (if forced to decide for
> a
> > single format) - Brian Eaton, Torsten Lodderstedt JSON as the only format
> -
> > James Manger, Robert Sayre application/x-www-form-urlencoded as the
> > only format - Mike Moore JSON for responses as well - Marius Scurtescu
> >
> > Here are some representative comments from the thread:
> >
> > Joseph Smarr - "JSON is already widely supported (presumably including by
> > most APIs that you're building OAuth support to be able to access!"
> >
> > David Recordon - "it's drastically more complex for environments (like
> > embedded hardware) which doesn't support JSON."
> >
> > Paul C. Bryan - "I'm struggling to imagine hardware that on the one hand
> > would support OAuth, but on the other would be incapable of supporting
> > JSON..."
> >
> > Gaurav Rastogi - "There are enough number of small embedded software
> > stack where JSON is not an option."
> >
> > So we have at least 9 votes pro JSON, but also 1 vote for
> application/x-www-
> > form-urlencoded only.
> >
> > How shall we proceed? Can we come to a consensus?
> >
> > regards,
> > Torsten.
> >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Brian
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > OAuth mailing list
> > > OAuth@ietf.org
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OAuth mailing list
> > OAuth@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>