Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter
Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com> Thu, 15 April 2010 19:51 UTC
Return-Path: <eran@hueniverse.com>
X-Original-To: oauth@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDEA83A69A4 for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Apr 2010 12:51:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.455
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.455 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.143, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xxM8ECEgUE1a for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Apr 2010 12:51:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p3plex1out01.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plex1out01.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [72.167.180.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 9BE9B3A69A2 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Apr 2010 12:51:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 1263 invoked from network); 15 Apr 2010 19:51:08 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.ex1.secureserver.net) (72.167.180.19) by p3plex1out01.prod.phx3.secureserver.net with SMTP; 15 Apr 2010 19:51:08 -0000
Received: from P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET ([10.6.135.19]) by P3PW5EX1HT001.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET ([72.167.180.19]) with mapi; Thu, 15 Apr 2010 12:51:04 -0700
From: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
To: Marius Scurtescu <mscurtescu@google.com>, "recordond@gmail.com" <recordond@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 12:51:02 -0700
Thread-Topic: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter
Thread-Index: Acrc00gQmuQR/0fSR4ClfyaHxINuxAAAbH9H
Message-ID: <C7ECBC36.32379%eran@hueniverse.com>
In-Reply-To: <h2o74caaad21004151238w60c3afd3td8dccdd8a7127a4a@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C7ECBC3632379eranhueniversecom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: OAuth WG <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <oauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth>
List-Post: <mailto:oauth@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 19:51:20 -0000
1. Write it 2. Comply with naming policy of new parameters* 3. Publish and get feedback. 4. Fix and repeat #3 as needed. 5. Register new parameter name* :-) * Pending new parameter name policy For now just call it 'scope'. EHL On 4/15/10 12:38 PM, "Marius Scurtescu" <mscurtescu@google.com> wrote: Sure. Do we have a mechanism to define extensions? Marius On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 12:26 PM, David Recordon <recordond@gmail.com> wrote: > Marius, why don't we write a one page spec which defines scope as an > extension? We end up with agreement around if scope is a useful > parameter and a simple parameter name for multiple vendors (because it > is an extension). Since you seem to be advocating for including scope > the most, would you mind trying to write out a few paragraphs? > > Thanks, > --David > > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 12:20 PM, Marius Scurtescu > <mscurtescu@google.com> wrote: >> I still have not seen any arguments why scope structure is needed for >> interop. Client and server side libraries do not need to understand >> the scope, they just pass it around. Client and server code do need to >> understand the scope, but we are not dealing with that. >> >> Yes, a scope parameter does not buy much, it only prevents each authz >> server from inventing their own custom parameter. >> >> Marius >> >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 12:07 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com> wrote: >>> WRAP includes a loosely defined scope parameter which allows for >>> vendor-specific (and non-interoperable) use cases. This was requested by >>> many working group members to be included in OAuth 2.0 with the argument >>> that while it doesn't help interop, it makes using clients easier. >>> >>> The problem with a general purpose scope parameter that is completely >>> undefined in structure is that it hurts interop more than it helps. It >>> creates an expectation that values can be used across services, and it >>> cannot be used without another spec defining its content and structure. Such >>> as spec can simply define its own parameter. >>> >>> In addition, it is not clear what belongs in scope (list of resources, >>> access type, duration of access, right to share data, rights to >>> re-delegate). >>> >>> The rules should be that if a parameter cannot be used without another >>> documentation, it should be defined in that other document. >>> >>> Proposal: Request proposals for a scope parameter definition that improve >>> interop. Otherwise, keep the parameter out of the core spec. >>> >>> EHL >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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-WG] Issue: Scope parameter Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter Marius Scurtescu
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter David Recordon
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter Marius Scurtescu
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter David Recordon
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter Justin Smith
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter Manger, James H
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter Justin Smith
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter Manger, James H
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter Justin Smith
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter Marius Scurtescu
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter Manger, James H
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter Mark Mcgloin
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter Manger, James H
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter Justin Smith
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter Torsten Lodderstedt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter Dick Hardt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter Manger, James H
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter Torsten Lodderstedt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter David Recordon
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter Dick Hardt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter David Recordon
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter Marius Scurtescu
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter Luke Shepard
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter Dick Hardt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter Dick Hardt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter Anthony Nadalin
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter Torsten Lodderstedt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter Evan Gilbert
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter Justin Richer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter Eran Hammer-Lahav