The link relations registry is a regular IANA registry, just like OAuth
parameters registry.
It is also available in XML format but so is the OAuth parameters
registry, i.e.:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/oauth-parameters/oauth-parameters.xml
You do not say that OAuth is XML based because the parameter registry is
available also in XML, do you?
# OTHT, it would be an interesting idea to suggest to IANA to make
# those registries available in JSON as well.
Nat
2016-02-25 06:06 に Anthony Nadalin さんは書きました:
So as I understand it in the Link Relations repository are XML
documents that one has to create, are you suggesting as part of this
effort is to rewrite all that in JSON and make a proposal for that
also ?
FROM: Nat Sakimura [mailto:[email protected]]
SENT: Tuesday, February 16, 2016 4:55 PM
TO: Anthony Nadalin <[email protected]>; oauth <[email protected]>
SUBJECT: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: New Version Notification for
draft-sakimura-oauth-meta-07.txt
Link relation is not at all XML. It is a step forward to RESTfulness.
In the older version of the draft, I was using JSONized version of it
as well, but I splitted it out for the sake of brevity.
It is all about dynamic metadata about the response.
Once we do it with RFC5988, we could easily create a parallel to it
with JSON meta object of your flavour.
(Currently, JSON schema seems to be in fashion, though I personally
prefer HAL.)
Good things about using JSONized version is that it will be usable
outside the HTTP and the fact that it can be stored in a single JSON
object together with the data.
Bad thing about it is that we have to start from the syntax for it,
which we can avoid by using RFC5988.
If people want the JSON version of this, I could do it as well.
However, since we are processing HTTP response headers anyways, there
is not much compelling reason for that as long as we stick with HTTP.
That's why I am just sticking with RFC5988.
Nat.
2016年2月17日(水) 8:50 Anthony Nadalin <[email protected]>:
I really think that this is a step backwards relative to technology
and what the developers would accept. The Link Relations takes us
back to the XML days, I thought we have all moved on from that and
at least trying to move Oauth to JSON. I think if this were adopted
we might be splitting the developers into folks that are already
going down the current JSON path with Oauth and those that want to
go back to XML.
This just seems a very odd draft to adopt this technology.
FROM: OAuth [mailto:[email protected]] ON BEHALF OF Nat
Sakimura
SENT: Monday, February 15, 2016 3:59 PM
TO: oauth <[email protected]>
SUBJECT: [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: New Version Notification for
draft-sakimura-oauth-meta-07.txt
It now shows how to return multiple endpoints in web linking.
Also, added Resource Endpoint response header.
Best,
nat
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: <[email protected]>
Date: 2016年2月12日(金) 18:40
Subject: New Version Notification for
draft-sakimura-oauth-meta-07.txt
To: Nov Matake <[email protected]>, Nat Sakimura <[email protected]>,
Sascha Preibisch <[email protected]>, Sascha Preibisch
<[email protected]>
A new version of I-D, draft-sakimura-oauth-meta-07.txt
has been successfully submitted by Nat Sakimura and posted to the
IETF repository.
Name: draft-sakimura-oauth-meta
Revision: 07
Title: OAuth Response Metadata
Document date: 2016-02-12
Group: Individual Submission
Pages: 10
URL:
https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-sakimura-oauth-meta-07.txt
[1]
Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sakimura-oauth-meta/
[2]
Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sakimura-oauth-meta-07
[3]
Diff:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-sakimura-oauth-meta-07 [4]
Abstract:
This specification defines an extensible metadata that may be
inserted into the OAuth 2.0 responses to assist the clients to
process those responses. It is expressed either as a link header,
or
query parameters. It will allow the client to learn where the
members in the response could be used, what is the characteristics
of
the payload is, how it should be processed, and so on. Since they
are just additional response header/query parameters, any client
that
does not understand this extension should not break and work
normally
while supporting clients can utilize the metadata to take the
advantage of the extension.
Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org
[5].
The IETF Secretariat
Links:
------
[1]
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.ietf.org%2finternet-drafts%2fdraft-sakimura-oauth-meta-07.txt&data=01%7c01%7ctonynad%40microsoft.com%7c3a992d5ff4a2428804f208d336641292%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=6M10Q9X4cq%2b%2fRroR%2fHYQ9IN3P1HO06JnbuzY6P3oWtc%3d
[2]
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fdatatracker.ietf.org%2fdoc%2fdraft-sakimura-oauth-meta%2f&data=01%7c01%7ctonynad%40microsoft.com%7c3a992d5ff4a2428804f208d336641292%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=7twEM0FztSaswtFiYslvJuadTyWbWRSDWQ6uT%2bevKwM%3d
[3]
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2ftools.ietf.org%2fhtml%2fdraft-sakimura-oauth-meta-07&data=01%7c01%7ctonynad%40microsoft.com%7c3a992d5ff4a2428804f208d336641292%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=kh2nH4IyNm3OAA5nkrSFzZN16Xic%2b2EDUOfr%2fG6CjVY%3d
[4]
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.ietf.org%2frfcdiff%3furl2%3ddraft-sakimura-oauth-meta-07&data=01%7c01%7ctonynad%40microsoft.com%7c3a992d5ff4a2428804f208d336641292%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=ICtk5U1e6kBPFI8ov0n06TAcqDX3HurgFTydXKD73Yo%3d
[5]
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2ftools.ietf.org&data=01%7c01%7ctonynad%40microsoft.com%7c3a992d5ff4a2428804f208d336641292%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=aijC6rAn01n04mDyB5lpV7tQitxIyf0drdheleR955A%3d
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
