[OAUTH-WG] Clarification on section 3.3: missing scope parameter in access token request

Andrew Arnott <andrewarnott@gmail.com> Mon, 13 February 2012 04:44 UTC

Return-Path: <andrewarnott@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 807F121F85E3 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Feb 2012 20:44:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TGftNtbuO2Ea for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Feb 2012 20:44:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qw0-f44.google.com (mail-qw0-f44.google.com [209.85.216.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABF8421F85E1 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Feb 2012 20:44:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: by qafi29 with SMTP id i29so1365597qaf.10 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Feb 2012 20:44:39 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=1CXIy23cNgT6GeNOqclK416vSDdrvX7OUn54u9AEuw4=; b=RJT/bBq0+HzcZos1px/80GPSvS6QKVXHuE4MharebC4DN8h7A7+kILHV+wsn8fbHWn VQBxT8LvL1LHIeQKchlA9rqN7cLIT/Xx2xldGB/rWELvLxWyyqK6zcarDZjgPrspBPjU /okcCedmInRb6sM2eGOy8knedl9NoidF4UOp4=
Received: by 10.229.106.134 with SMTP id x6mr8053721qco.138.1329108279218; Sun, 12 Feb 2012 20:44:39 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.25.8 with HTTP; Sun, 12 Feb 2012 20:44:19 -0800 (PST)
From: Andrew Arnott <andrewarnott@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 20:44:19 -0800
Message-ID: <CAE358b4yTtRXqsz-p+o_F=cj4a-JChWvn8RJ-j169ckQaq6sEw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "OAuth WG (oauth@ietf.org)" <oauth@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="002354332a3ad9d33b04b8d1225c"
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Clarification on section 3.3: missing scope parameter in access token request
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <oauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 04:44:40 -0000

>From section 3.3 (draft 23):

> If the client omits the scope parameter when requesting authorization, the
> authorization server MUST either process the request using* a pre-defined
> default value*, or fail the request indicating an invalid scope. The
> authorization server SHOULD document its scope requirements and default
> value (if defined).


Is this saying that the pre-defined default value must be a FIXED value for
all clients and all grants?  Or might the predefined default value actually
be a derivation of the grant? (for example, by default the access token
scope is simply the maximum scope allowed by the grant)

Thanks.

--
Andrew Arnott
"I [may] not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death
your right to say it." - S. G. Tallentyre