Re: [OAUTH-WG] Versioning

It was and this approach was rejected by this group as confusing. At this point, it's specification is so short, it can live anywhere.

EHL

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marius Scurtescu [mailto:mscurtescu@google.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2010 11:28 AM
> To: Eran Hammer-Lahav
> Cc: William Mills; Rob Richards; oauth@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Versioning
> 
> On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 11:19 AM, Eran Hammer-Lahav
> <eran@hueniverse.com> wrote:
> > I think HTTP authentication schemes should be generally useful. In this
> case, OAuth defines a few ways to obtain an token, and a few ways to use a
> token with HTTP resources. What it doesn't do is say anything useful about
> the token itself, or implies that the tokens are "OAuth tokens" (i.e. that the
> nature of the token is bound to the OAuth protocol).
> >
> > I can envision use cases where someone wants to use existing tokens
> (obtained via other means than those provided by OAuth) to access
> protected resources. What about using a token as currently defined is
> OAuth-specific?
> >
> > In other words, the scheme name is generic because OAuth tokens are
> generic and for the most part left undefined. Naming the scheme OAuth
> implies that there is a link between the token properties and how they are
> obtained, and the current protocol does not specify any such link. The same
> applies to using HTTP Basic for client credentials, not to log-in an end-user.
> 
> Sure, but then I think the "Token" scheme needs its own standalone spec
> and not be defined as part of the OAuth 2 spec.
> 
> Marius
> 
> >
> > EHL
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: William Mills [mailto:wmills@yahoo-inc.com]
> >> Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2010 11:08 AM
> >> To: Eran Hammer-Lahav; Rob Richards; oauth@ietf.org
> >> Subject: RE: [OAUTH-WG] Versioning
> >>
> >> Why is using the string "Token" better than "OAuth2"?  1.0 used "Oauth".
> >>
> >>
> >> If it's purely a question of aesthetics, I prefer "Oauth_2" to "Token"
> >> because I feel it's clearer and more descriptive.
> >>
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: Eran Hammer-Lahav [mailto:eran@hueniverse.com]
> >> > Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2010 11:00 AM
> >> > To: William Mills; Rob Richards; oauth@ietf.org
> >> > Subject: RE: [OAUTH-WG] Versioning
> >> >
> >> > Why is a version better than a new scheme name? Version is only
> >> > helpful when the protocol is practically the same with some minor
> >> > changes, and if that is the case, extensibility alone should be
> >> > enough.
> >> >
> >> > EHL
> >> >
> >> > > -----Original Message-----
> >> > > From: William Mills [mailto:wmills@yahoo-inc.com]
> >> > > Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2010 10:49 AM
> >> > > To: Eran Hammer-Lahav; Rob Richards; oauth@ietf.org
> >> > > Subject: RE: [OAUTH-WG] Versioning
> >> > >
> >> > > My feeling on this is that versioning explicitly in the
> >> > protocol adds
> >> > > clarity and some small level of compatibility.  Different auth
> >> > > and token endpoints are easy, what's harder is supporting
> >> > > multiple protocols on the same protected resource.  It's on the
> >> > > protected resource I'd like to see some clearer protocol version
> >> > > spec
> >> > so I'm not
> >> > > having to figure out from the variable names which protocol it is.
> >> > >
> >> > > > -----Original Message-----
> >> > > > From: oauth-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-bounces@ietf.org] On
> >> > > > Behalf Of Eran Hammer-Lahav
> >> > > > Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2010 9:36 AM
> >> > > > To: Rob Richards; OAuth WG (oauth@ietf.org)
> >> > > > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Versioning
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Hi Rob,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> >> > > > > From: Rob Richards [mailto:rrichards@cdatazone.org]
> >> > > > > Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2010 3:26 AM
> >> > > > > To: OAuth WG (oauth@ietf.org) Eran Hammer-Lahav
> >> > > > > Subject: Versioning
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Versioning is still something that needs to be addressed
> >> > > > before being
> >> > > > > being able to consider the draft core complete.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Versioning rarely works because when you define it, you
> >> > have no idea
> >> > > > what the requirements will be for the next version. A
> >> > good example
> >> > > > is the OAuth 1.0 version parameter. When we worked to revised
> >> > > > 1.0 into 1.0a, we had a long debate on changing the protocol
> >> > > > version number. We had a hard time agreeing on what the version
> >> > > > meant and what was it a version
> >> > > > *of*: the signature method or the token flow.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > If this protocol will require significant changes in the
> >> > future that
> >> > > > go beyond its extensibility support, such a new version
> >> > will need to
> >> > > > use different endpoints (token or end-user authorization)
> >> > > > and/or different HTTP authentication scheme.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > If you want to discuss versioning, you must provide your
> >> > > > requirements for such a feature, and clearly show how
> >> > they are not
> >> > > > served by the current extensibility proposal.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > On this I'm still of the opinion that at the very
> >> > minimum you will
> >> > > > > need to require an oauth_version parameter for the resource
> >> > > > endpoints,
> >> > > > > if not also for the others as well.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I think the difficulty of differentiating a 1.0 from a
> >> > 2.0 protected
> >> > > > resource request is exaggerated. As said before, you can tell
> >> > > > the difference based on the presence of other parameter
> >> > > > (oauth_signature_method), or by examining the provided token
> >> > > > (assuming you issue different tokens for each version).
> >> > The argument
> >> > > > that a 2.0 request can also be a malformed 1.0 request is
> >> > silly. I
> >> > > > have yet to hear about that level of incompetence for a 1.0
> >> > > > developer (and I've heard about a lot) - omitting every
> >> > other required parameter.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > At most, I'm open to renaming the oauth_token parameter
> >> > to something
> >> > > > else (oauth_access_token, oauth.token, oauth-token,
> >> > > > etc.) but I think even that is not needed.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > EHL
> >> > > > _______________________________________________
> >> > > > 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
> >