IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com> Mon, 19 April 2010 15:48 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 EA1563A6B1D for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 08:48:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.458
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.458 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.141, 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 ReSPYSnDEzjP for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 08:48:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p3plex1out01.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plex1out01.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [72.167.180.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 8ADFD3A6B2C for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 08:25:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 21573 invoked from network); 19 Apr 2010 15:25:23 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.ex1.secureserver.net) (72.167.180.19) by p3plex1out01.prod.phx3.secureserver.net with SMTP; 19 Apr 2010 15:25:23 -0000
Received: from P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET ([10.6.135.20]) by P3PW5EX1HT001.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET ([72.167.180.19]) with mapi; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 08:25:22 -0700
From: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
To: Mike Moore <blowmage@gmail.com>, Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten@lodderstedt.net>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 08:25:20 -0700
Thread-Topic: [OAUTH-WG] application/x-www-form-urlencoded vs JSON
Thread-Index: Acrf0wtSAVzNCeOfRVqnAmNUd9Ip6AAAXo4w
Message-ID: <C7F1C3F0.327E6%eran@hueniverse.com>
In-Reply-To: <h2yf5bedd151004190757q27927b65na3e5c5744a53526a@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: OAuth WG <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] application/x-www-form-urlencoded vs JSON
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: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 15:48:22 -0000

You are missing the point. The server will be required to support one of
these, but allowed to offer more. If your client is limited, just support
the required format. This is good for clients as it guarantees both interop
and flexibility.

The downside, like anything else, is a more complex protocol. BUT, if most
vendors are going to add such alternative formats, we should codify it.

For those who want this, the next step is to suggest language for other
encoding formats just as JSON or XML.

EHL


On 4/19/10 7:57 AM, "Mike Moore" <blowmage@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 5:48 AM, Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten@lodderstedt.net>
> wrote:
>> 
>>> We can also offer both and define a client request parameter (as long as the
>>> server is required to make at least one format available).
>> 
>> +1 on this
> 
> -1  on this. As a client I don't want to have to support both form encoding
> and json. Just make a single good decision and stick to it, please.
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email