Michael Thomas <[email protected]> writes:
> Derek Atkins wrote:
>> Michael Thomas <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> Why not MUST ASN.1 while you're at it? JSON has won in case
>>> you'all haven't noticed it.
>>
>> Well, now that you mention it... ;-)
>>
>> But seriously, we're basing this work on an RFC that was just release
>> six months ago and it requires XML. Why be so quick to drop something
>> we just published half a year ago? So maybe in 6 months we drop JSON
>> and add the next big thing? Come on, Mike.
>>
>> I agree, we should definitely support JSON. But I also think we should
>> support XML. The client can do what it wants, which is where want the
>> light weight implementation.
>
> I think you're probably misunderstanding me. I'm (I believe) with Tim
> in saying "pick one". Just one. For clients and servers. And I'm only
No, I'm not misunderstanding you, I know exactly what you are arguing
for. And I'm agreeing with you that we must support JSON. However, I
disagree that we should drop XML, especially considering 6415 requires
XML and it was just released 6 months ago.
I'm also saying that this is only a server-side requirement to support
both. The client can choose to support only one based on its own
requirements. If you already have an XML-based client, why force them
to add JSON support? Similarly, if you already have a JSON-based
client, why force them to add XML support?
If you're writing a client, you can ignore XML and only play with JSON.
-derek
--
Derek Atkins 617-623-3745
[email protected] www.ihtfp.com
Computer and Internet Security Consultant
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
