Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter

Does anyone have an implementation example where comma separated
strings wouldn't work for the scope parameter?

On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would leave that to be AS defined -- different delimiters make sense in different environments -- it could be an expression -- just make it a string -- it will need to be URL encoded which will deal with any magic characters.
>
> -- Diok
>
>
> On 2010-04-18, at 6:38 PM, David Recordon wrote:
>
>> I think we need to add a bit more definition to the scope parameter.
>> Maybe as simple as a comma-separated list of strings.
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 6:12 PM, Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> The scope parameter was included in WRAP at the request of library and AS
>>> implementors to standardize a commonly included parameters.
>>> The client_id parameter seems similar to the scope parameter. The meaning of
>>> client_id is not defined in the spec and is AS specific. A client_id that a
>>> developer uses with one AS may be different at a different AS.
>>> The argument that defining the scope parameter will cause more confusion is
>>> confusing itself. Why would a developer think they can use the same scope at
>>> two different AS? The developer has to manage different client_ids,
>>> different endpoint URIs and different PRs: not to mention different APIs.
>>> Having a different scope between AS seems natural. Having a vendor defined
>>> parameter name for different AS that all mean scope seems suboptimal.
>>> A related example. Email has a subject parameter, we all have a similar idea
>>> what it means, and it can be used differently in different situations, but
>>> it was useful to create the placeholder for the optional subject of an email
>>> message.
>>> Proposal: put optional scope parameter back into all calls to obtain an
>>> access token. Put optional scope parameter into calls to refresh an access
>>> token.
>>> -- Dick
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>
>