Re: [OAUTH-WG] Scope - Coming to a Consensus

Marius Scurtescu <mscurtescu@google.com> Sat, 01 May 2010 01:12 UTC

Return-Path: <mscurtescu@google.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 7AD7B3A6A2D for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 18:12:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.708
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.708 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.269, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 Ht9tFiX1oZOO for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 18:12:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [74.125.121.35]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 525EE3A63D3 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 18:12:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wpaz1.hot.corp.google.com (wpaz1.hot.corp.google.com [172.24.198.65]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id o411BuM9021224 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 18:11:56 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1272676316; bh=rVo9JI9nbUmwADbHLjM9hQxx8Xk=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=RaH5doYbhKkpXsaN5P0LbdpFIephfY4CFjvpCKUk3FOZD/VMXH8A68bGMFmdwmHOV qfwjDO7Tzzl8nk2tKrDBA==
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id: subject:to:cc:content-type:x-system-of-record; b=h8pHutsAWdKudWjC0EOmQwP3lShumgYygl2KcvPK/HUpju84s9N+MjzuyCWQSTdN3 9E/5AX3/mReNYkFyTAu5g==
Received: from pwj5 (pwj5.prod.google.com [10.241.219.69]) by wpaz1.hot.corp.google.com with ESMTP id o411BspB032327 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 18:11:54 -0700
Received: by pwj5 with SMTP id 5so418750pwj.20 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 18:11:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.141.106.12 with SMTP id i12mr1499920rvm.149.1272676314159; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 18:11:54 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.141.14.15 with HTTP; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 18:11:34 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <C80078D0.2D681%atom@yahoo-inc.com>
References: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E723439321772EF@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET> <C80078D0.2D681%atom@yahoo-inc.com>
From: Marius Scurtescu <mscurtescu@google.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 18:11:34 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTikJBx-BwdLvgszIhSo9cf5WsJZvtjrWznei44Te@mail.gmail.com>
To: Allen Tom <atom@yahoo-inc.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-System-Of-Record: true
Cc: "OAuth WG \(oauth@ietf.org\)" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Scope - Coming to a Consensus
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: Sat, 01 May 2010 01:12:13 -0000

+1 for #3.

If the delimiter becomes an issue then:
- for application/x-www-form-urlencoded and query parameters we can
allow multiple values for this parameter
- for json this parameter can be defined as an array

Marius



On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 12:08 PM, Allen Tom <atom@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
> I vote for #3
>
> There are already plenty of implementations that use a scope parameter:
>
> Facebook:
> http://developers.facebook.com/docs/authentication/
>
> Google:
> http://code.google.com/apis/accounts/docs/OAuth_ref.html#RequestToken
>
> Flickr: (called "perm")
> http://www.flickr.com/services/api/auth.spec.html
>
> Yahoo currently requires developers to tell us the scopes that they need
> when registering for a consumer key. We've received plenty of feedback that
> developers would rather specify the scope(s) at authorization time, so we
> would support a multi-valued scope parameter. Space is a reasonable
> delimiter.
>
> Allen
>
>
>
> On 4/30/10 8:43 AM, "Eran Hammer-Lahav" <eran@hueniverse.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> 3. Space-Delimited Scope Parameter Value
>>
>> Define a 'scope' parameter with value of space-delimited strings (which can
>> include any character that is not a space - the entire parameter value is
>> encoded per the transport rules regardless). Space allows using URIs or simple
>> strings as values.
>>
>> Pros:
>>
>> - A separator-delimited list of values is the common format for scope
>> parameters in existing implementations and represents actual deployment
>> experience.
>> - Most vendors define a set of opaque strings used for requesting scope. This
>> enables libraries to concatenate these in a standard way.
>> - Enables simple extensions in the future for discovering which scope is
>> required by each resource.
>>
>> Cons:
>>
>> - Defining a format without a discovery method for the values needs doesn't
>> offer much more than the other options.
>> - Doesn't go far enough to actually achieve interoperability.
>> - Adds complexity for little value.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>