IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth vs OAuth2 in Authorization header

Marius Scurtescu <mscurtescu@google.com> Thu, 15 July 2010 18:57 UTC

Return-Path: <mscurtescu@google.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 DC7B53A6971 for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Jul 2010 11:57:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.861
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.861 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.116, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 xz6377F-3I7c for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Jul 2010 11:57:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [74.125.121.35]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E303F3A6A9E for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Jul 2010 11:57:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hpaq12.eem.corp.google.com (hpaq12.eem.corp.google.com [172.25.149.12]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id o6FIvB6Q026683 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Jul 2010 11:57:11 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1279220231; bh=zKvJthAmGfPJ06vX/xS7kxDXurE=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject: To:Cc:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=RYWRksS+vMx6+QdmrH9Oq6iTpIwFaYcbpvhQDhdu5i/zWXLQp7Hvmp2HUcVuoqFNF 9j3ciMZ8wzVZgxT0Q4Iiw==
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id: subject:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-system-of-record; b=IV0NmZPp1dH/bSFYUwmqMQ/Y+6vieOtiqupwKBPYEQbP2vNrgIRzch3KwaMxToj1S PDpaTnfxU51XtFJr+2EUA==
Received: from yxm8 (yxm8.prod.google.com [10.190.4.8]) by hpaq12.eem.corp.google.com with ESMTP id o6FIv9Z0031084 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Jul 2010 11:57:10 -0700
Received: by yxm8 with SMTP id 8so334077yxm.11 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Jul 2010 11:57:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.101.3.34 with SMTP id f34mr59154ani.185.1279220229230; Thu, 15 Jul 2010 11:57:09 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.100.93.3 with HTTP; Thu, 15 Jul 2010 11:56:49 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <DE089E9F-35D6-4805-AC77-F86F2642810B@hueniverse.com>
References: <AANLkTim6az--AdwmEoew2pz3kEjhc_GyEaiyo_0UhSRr@mail.gmail.com> <1279205969.18579.55.camel@localhost.localdomain> <AANLkTildz62l2Me26Dlrv5nNmp8Z3P8JD1K-ChcWc5IO@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTill8k-fUFt-IZLWdZinScj4fSBoI4rAiAf1PrYR@mail.gmail.com> <1279216291.18579.61.camel@localhost.localdomain> <74AEEFD7-04B3-4B28-970E-0DB554728BED@facebook.com> <DE089E9F-35D6-4805-AC77-F86F2642810B@hueniverse.com>
From: Marius Scurtescu <mscurtescu@google.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 11:56:49 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTim5zPTT36rRb7Enqs3ggWIHz35_-KqHZOS90ZZm@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-System-Of-Record: true
Cc: "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth vs OAuth2 in Authorization header
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: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 18:57:01 -0000

On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 11:36 AM, Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com> wrote:
> Framing the argument against "having a 2 in it" as bikeshedding is missing the point. My reason against using OAuth2 is that is will undermine all the work put in to build an extensible framework that can evolve without needing a whole new version. By putting a version number, we make it more attractive to change the protocol than extend it.

Sure, but clearly there is no evolution from OAuth 1 to OAuth 2. If
the next version of OAuth is an evolution of OAuth 2 then it probably
should not be called OAuth 3 but rather OAtuh 2.1 and then header and
parameter names can be kept the same. At some point a new revolution
will be needed and then OAuth 3 is appropriate, as well as new header
and parameter names.

Marius

v2.38.3 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status