As a datapoint OAuth 1.0a deliberately did not change the version string from 1.0 to 1.0a, and it was determined that the version parameter did not add any value. I can¹t quite recall the reasoning behind this off the top of my head though.
Big +10000 to trying to harmonize OpenID and Oauth WRAP. Allen On 2/25/10 8:22 PM, "Nat Sakimura" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Dick Hardt <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On 2010-02-25, at 4:11 PM, Nat Sakimura wrote: >> >>> Hi >>> >>> This may have come up earlier but ... >>> >>> I think Wrap should have a namespace / versioning syntax. >>> Invariably, it will evolve, and will require version number etc. so, it >>> seems better to me to have one from the beginning. >>> >>> e.g., >>> >>>> wrap_ns=http://whatever/wrap/1.0 >>>> wrap_client_id ... >> >> Versioning was discussed. I don't recall the details, but it was decided it >> did not add value. >> > > I actually think it does. > Perhaps not in the initial version, but in the future for sure. > So, it is better to have it in the design from the beginning. > >> >>> >>> I would go further. Why is underscore '_' is used for the delimiter? >>> If we make it dot '.', it will improve the future compatibility with OpenID. >> >> Or OpenID could change to using '_' :-) > > If you use '_' as the namespace delimiter, then '_' should be disallowed in > the parameter name, which is not the case right now. > >> >> >>> So, we could do something like: >>> >>>> openid.ns=http://whatever/wrap/1.0 >>>> openid.client_id ... >>> >>> The same applies for OpenID. For an unknown reason, though OpenID has >>> namespace so that we write: >>> >>>> openid.ns= http://specs.openid.net/auth/2.0 >>> >>> the prefix "openid" is fixed. We should be able to change it like: >>> >>>> wrap.ns=http://specs.openid.net/auth/2.0 >>> >>> Now, the third point. >>> >>> Could we not try to harmonize the variable names between the two specs? >>> >>> OpenID is in use widely, so it is kind of hard to change it, >> >> Interesting assumption. At IIW we discussed OpenID v Next that was NOT >> backward compatible. It would seem that there is an oppportunity to make >> changes to OpenID as well as OAuth WRAP. > > yes. The above also requires changes on the OpenID side, but I am seeing > an opportunity to make the transition smoother. > >> >>> so I would request Wrap community to come closer. >> >> WRAP followed OAuth, which has much broader adoption from what I know than >> OpenID >> > > Arguably yes, but at the same time, 'wrap_' is not 'oauth_' ;-) >>> >>> IMHO, we should try to harmonize/unite instead of fragmenting. >> >> Agreed, but perhaps the changes could happen in OpenID or a combination? > > Definitely in combination. > > It is good that OpenID Foundation finally can start creating WGs again. > >> >> -- Dick >> >> _______________________________________________ >> specs mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs >> > >
_______________________________________________ specs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
