IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OAUTH-WG] 'Scope' parameter proposal

Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com> Thu, 22 April 2010 18:36 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 2BD8D28C19A for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 11:36:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.559
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.559 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.040, 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 unnChJwW+Q6J for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 11:36:52 -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 5A53C28C19E for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 11:30:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 13222 invoked from network); 22 Apr 2010 18:30:41 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.ex1.secureserver.net) (72.167.180.20) by p3plex1out01.prod.phx3.secureserver.net with SMTP; 22 Apr 2010 18:30:41 -0000
Received: from P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET ([10.6.135.20]) by P3PW5EX1HT002.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET ([72.167.180.20]) with mapi; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 11:30:16 -0700
From: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
To: Brian Eaton <beaton@google.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 11:30:06 -0700
Thread-Topic: [OAUTH-WG] 'Scope' parameter proposal
Thread-Index: AcriSL714L7VER1FRCuG3bg4byp2iQAAPv3A
Message-ID: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E723438E5C7FCFA@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>
References: <C7F1D1FC.32809%eran@hueniverse.com> <0D5497F5-75A7-4A42-9A5E-9C2310162B18@jkemp.net> <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E723438E5C7F30A@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET> <g2mdaf5b9571004221036j5d6837f6z4d7959d69a3cbb2b@mail.gmail.com> <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E723438E5C7FCD4@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET> <z2wdaf5b9571004221121m611c6a4ay6d636c440bb48d06@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <z2wdaf5b9571004221121m611c6a4ay6d636c440bb48d06@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: OAuth WG <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] 'Scope' parameter proposal
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, 22 Apr 2010 18:36:53 -0000

What makes this so much different from Basic? Instead of using a flow the browser simply asks the user for a set of credentials. Once it has a set, it reuses it based on realm.

EHL

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Eaton [mailto:beaton@google.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 11:22 AM
> To: Eran Hammer-Lahav
> Cc: OAuth WG
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] 'Scope' parameter proposal
> 
> On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Eran Hammer-Lahav
> <eran@hueniverse.com> wrote:
> > Rules around realms show this is very tricky but unless we update 2617
> > (which we are not chartered to do) we are still stuck with realm as a
> required parameter.
> > One way to avoid this debate is to simply say that clients should use
> > realms to decide when to reuse tokens. It doesn't solve the problem,
> > but it doesn't create a new one either.
> 
> The existing rules for realm are basically same-origin policy.  That doesn't
> actually work for any of the delegated auth solutions that
> OAuth2 is based on, and is meant to replace.  Telling people to use realm is
> terrible, no-good, very-bad advice.
> 
> As far as I can tell, the only practical guidance we can give developers is
> "follow the service provider documentation."
> 
> Cheers,
> Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email