[Openid-specs-ab] HTTP form HTML POST binding identifier
Brian Campbell
bcampbell at pingidentity.com
Fri Oct 18 22:30:54 UTC 2013
“form_post” seems okay.
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones at microsoft.com>wrote:
> Names that have been proposed so far are:****
>
> POST****
>
> html_form****
>
> html****
>
> form_post****
>
> SAML calls this binding “HTTP POST” (see
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/security/saml/v2.0/saml-bindings-2.0-os.pdfSection 3.5).
> ****
>
> WS-Federation doesn’t appear to explicitly name the binding (see
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsfed/federation/v1.2/os/ws-federation-1.2-spec-os.html#_Toc223175014)
> but also says that the HTTP form is sent via HTTP POST.****
>
> ** **
>
> Given that colloquially, people tend to refer to this binding as a POST
> binding, I think we really want to keep POST in the name. I’ll grant Nat’s
> point that just “POST” is probably misleading. Therefore, I think we
> should choose from among these names:****
>
> form_post****
>
> html_post****
>
> http_post****
>
> ** **
>
> I prefer “form_post” from among these choices because it clearly
> differentiates it from just simply using the HTTP POST verb, by saying what
> is being posted. “html_post” is less specific and odd sounding.
> “http_post” sounds like we’re just using the HTTP POST verb, and so is
> misleading in the same way that simply “POST” is.****
>
> ** **
>
> So I’d choose “form_post”. Are people good with that, or do people want
> to advocate a different name? (If so, please say why.)****
>
> ** **
>
> -- Mike***
> *
>
> ** **
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openid-specs-ab mailing list
> Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20131018/52f8388d/attachment.html>
More information about the Openid-specs-ab
mailing list