On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Luke Shepard <lshep...@facebook.com>wrote:
> The spec officially protects against collisions: All OAuth-specific > endpoints shouldn't accept extra parameters, and the protected resources > need only worry about "access_token". > Callback URIs may have their own parameters (not in the live spec yet, but think we agreed to on a separate thread) > > The issue is softer - in this case, we are anticipating and preventing what > would otherwise be a common source of developer confusion. > > redirect_url (or redirect_uri, but we use _url elsewhere so whatever) seems > the best to me too. > I'm fine with either. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Barnes [mailto:rbar...@bbn.com] > Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 12:27 PM > To: Evan Gilbert > Cc: Luke Shepard; Naitik Shah; OAuth WG > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rename callback => callback_uri > > Ok, I think I get it. Thanks for the explanation. > > It seems we have a collision of layers here! When OAuth parameters > are being passed as request parameters (GET or POST), they can collide > with parameters being used by an application (e.g., for JSONP). In > effect, encoding OAuth in this way creates a set of "reserved words" > that applications can't use. > > In the short run, it's probably an OK hack to rename parameters to > something unlikely to collide, e.g., "oauth_*". (Note: This applies > to all OAuth parameters, not just "callback"). > > In the long run, though, doesn't this problem kind of argue that we > shouldn't be passed as application-layer things (request parameters), > but rather as HTTP-layer things, e.g., in an Authorization header? > > --Richard > > > > On Apr 16, 2010, at 3:05 PM, Evan Gilbert wrote: > > > We should use the same name in the User-Agent and Web Callback > > flows. Also, although the authorization server won't be allowing > > JSONP requests, "callback" has become a bit of a defacto standard > > for JSONP and it would be nice to use a term that isn't overloaded? > > > > Can we make them both "redirection"? Even better, maybe > > "redirect_uri"? > > > > On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 9:50 AM, Luke Shepard > > <lshep...@facebook.com> wrote: > > Facebook API requests are protected resources. They can be called > > either in a browser or in a server-to-server environment. > > > > For example, a JSONP call for my name looks like this: > > > > > https://api.facebook.com/restserver.php?api_key=361900759629&call_id=1271436355034&callback=FB.RestServer._callback&format=json&method=fql.query&query=SELECT%20name%20FROM%20user%20WHERE%20uid%3D2901279&v=1.0 > > > > The output (you can play with it here: > http://fbrell.com/fb.api/everyone-data > > ): > > > > FB.RestServer._callback([{"name":"Luke Shepard"}]); > > > > If we want that protected resource to take an access token as well, > > then it would look like: > > > > > https://api.facebook.com/restserver.php?....&callback=FB.RestServer._callback&access_token=ACCESS_TOKEN > > > > The "callback" parameter is used pretty universally for JSONP > > requests. For instance, see the Jquery docs: > http://api.jquery.com/jQuery.getJSON/ > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Richard Barnes [mailto:rbar...@bbn.com] > > Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 9:10 AM > > To: Luke Shepard > > Cc: Eran Hammer-Lahav; Naitik Shah; OAuth WG > > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rename callback => callback_uri > > > > Could you clarify a little more the environment in which this > > confusion arose? What do you mean when you say "The protected > > resource typically accepts 'callback' as a parameter to support > > JSONP."? What sort of software are you including in this? > > > > --Richard > > > > > > On Apr 15, 2010, at 5:41 PM, Luke Shepard wrote: > > > > > We already had one developer try it out and get confused because the > > > server tried to treat the callback URL as a JSONP callback. > > > > > > The protected resource typically accepts "callback" as a parameter > > > to support JSONP. If a developer accidentally passes in callback > > > there (maybe they got confused) then the server can't give a normal > > > error message - instead it needs to either detect that it looks like > > > a URL or otherwise reject it. > > > > > > On a related note, I think it's more confusing calling it something > > > different in the user-agent flow (redirector) when it's essentially > > > doing the same thing. > > > > > > > > > From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On > > > Behalf Of Eran Hammer-Lahav > > > Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 5:37 AM > > > To: Naitik Shah; OAuth WG > > > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rename callback => callback_uri > > > > > > I don't think it is that confusing. Its a completely different > > > context from where JSON-P is used (note that in the User-Agent flow > > > it is called something else). > > > > > > EHL > > > > > > > > > On 4/10/10 12:35 PM, "Naitik Shah" <nai...@facebook.com> wrote: > > > > > > With the simplified params, the callback url parameter is now just > > > "callback". Since most major API providers already use "callback" to > > > signify JSON-P callback, can we rename this to "callback_uri"? This > > > will help avoid collisions and confusion. > > > > > > > > > -Naitik > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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
