Return-Path: <dick.hardt@gmail.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 223F83A6874 for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>;
 Wed, 23 Jun 2010 09:02:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.433
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.433 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.166,
 BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 Mq0e5hC1Gon6 for
 <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Jun 2010 09:02:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pv0-f172.google.com (mail-pv0-f172.google.com
 [74.125.83.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41A5B3A682E for
 <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Jun 2010 09:02:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pvc21 with SMTP id 21so310154pvc.31 for <oauth@ietf.org>;
 Wed, 23 Jun 2010 09:02:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
 h=domainkey-signature:received:received:subject:mime-version
 :content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding
 :message-id:references:to:x-mailer;
 bh=voUetqjIcG13pf34hPm9EWSQYXsdf3zzQMM78gnSPDM=;
 b=RxsUrPhv0OemoQr45rp7SyQTXsQKGa1XihZjo63ylnEhh5iM5yScYjMlogAB490dNX
 lH1tf2n5ht0BrRQcEmitI4IYSQ9kzC+2oGvVZW16RK8NdpaNAWyGaWx4NK0viaPJd3Ak
 rF5tg3QAIiZ74JSKO0+AWwALSFNbrgpNtm79g=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
 h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc
 :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer;
 b=WUrX5+3P2FTIq13qj/ox4ACxgXdaXa310y4J0ExLYueDw+HsuD9wzWHZvSiWgC1mOb
 yDGWumGpid+c+idBrpusF2qnEfpXwZo8YS75PL64N+B8prwVad/qgHcaL+4AQiftttCH
 8X02/2vI5wmDYoQj4UhhiWuOlG/yOdj9Jp3tY=
Received: by 10.115.114.34 with SMTP id r34mr7842795wam.64.1277308950635;
 Wed, 23 Jun 2010 09:02:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.5] (c-24-130-32-55.hsd1.ca.comcast.net
 [24.130.32.55]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id
 c14sm71659505waa.1.2010.06.23.09.02.29 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5);
 Wed, 23 Jun 2010 09:02:29 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <3D3C75174CB95F42AD6BCC56E5555B4502BE07CC@FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 09:02:27 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E7A7F197-3BBC-43F2-8242-D0164057A39A@gmail.com>
References: <3D3C75174CB95F42AD6BCC56E5555B4502BE07CC@FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net>
To: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <hannes.tschofenig@nsn.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
Cc: OAuth WG <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Scope :: Was:  Extensibility for OAuth?
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: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 16:02:26 -0000

On 2010-06-22, at 11:07 PM, Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) wrote:

> "
>   scope
>         OPTIONAL.  The scope of the access request expressed as a list
>         of space-delimited strings.  The value of the "scope" =
parameter
>         is defined by the authorization server.  If the value contains
>         multiple space-delimited strings, their order does not matter,
>         and each string adds an additional access range to the
>         requested scope.
> "
>=20
> Do folks think it would be useful to have standardized values?=20

Not at this time. The semantics of scope are all over the place. If =
standardized, people will feel they need to pick one that is close to =
what they want, but is not exactly what they mean. I think it is better =
for the AS to define what they mean by a scope and give it a name that =
makes sense in that context.

>=20
> If the answer is "yes", then it would be useful to differentiate the
> standardized values from those values that are purely defined locally =
by
> the authorization server.=20

