IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OAUTH-WG] third party applications

Dima Postnikov <dima@postnikov.net> Wed, 02 September 2020 15:05 UTC

Return-Path: <dima.postnikov@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 992083A1186 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 08:05:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=postnikov-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qwQFI98WpC_O for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 08:05:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x436.google.com (mail-pf1-x436.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::436]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2327F3A0930 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 08:05:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x436.google.com with SMTP id v196so2321769pfc.1 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 02 Sep 2020 08:05:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=postnikov-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=N7/ozFmgFfXbP40WYQkudEaZx3uUYKWlM5gs9aH6QCU=; b=rYB6/C6QPxQN1HG6FTnR/Qzr9f7n53xTu0KA3kPyGmNGfpVjivGKeKRfiDAt+F4vOq gMYDgWTXF6cDa70dYs/U8cETPLPCkubNwWiJuokoS07DkYnGL6Yi4prRbnXDekWelbY2 gKCmfFgKt1Jo75a9CbQu8xbtWu72TbQp6O0u2CcTG7zg/aFUi+fdmNo34Zg55jC3o0su NDmBnoBf1Cnrtm+UnZz4OPHXKEWaPob0A0emEySsGBBGC3CKWYePBDlvRojbPEWVnRMz I7phlGN8vQ/JdtV0NkGnRzNQd17BJAc7SPrJg7GljcU55qrclPPk4sOXSjyKKMnMqY7q nM+g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=N7/ozFmgFfXbP40WYQkudEaZx3uUYKWlM5gs9aH6QCU=; b=W45ac+oW+WL7UnI3m9aserbYCMA+4/6Wg0InGmRzt+2N2dwgfIIryqzZkT1u7TiRjR R1fVOb4bbu+kQOCbz02Se4l2zceB9ePyNI9QO+h2XjE4/Fj/cKF/qYoaZaG2IjBCxQhm UjdxeVPFYHBrCo498fHqM6/hQ9VjMRPPgaSDPBPgh9doHlMVH3t/R+GX2oS1GQWwag1H cpOyz3VP3pv+S2MXoARmA8OHeKKrFFSgbrH0Ur2oFxTJiBSHhKlACQzzbs3wNidfVy+/ q+pZvyapnIPtWBRhq18EDHKr0OiEcvbhKlhLYKwD/F+v/Bn2lb/Xb/zW1WR1La00F8kZ St0w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM53255tusQIR614ZbEtb5umy2fT6hNMo5gO8WQDSIUXKXTJZjOKVS UT9pVO0Mjsb6cj2BlNodzKil7O0IpzSwJkC9MUg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzrlaJh34gD0dJF1iVgcKzbDr4Gje18pjbkvlkXa8bcshHY2FHe/ukxPMVhhZdcAh9zj3bM8K0VJeD7pY69mTU=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a00:806:: with SMTP id m6mr3620452pfk.184.1599059118430; Wed, 02 Sep 2020 08:05:18 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAEMK1uY0cSOyyU2t0N9RTOzmMeEpfMsb7K9WfQD=fQdCde9jTQ@mail.gmail.com> <B2AA5092-32BD-499D-9EAF-09AB95E6E9B6@lodderstedt.net> <CAGBSGjoKfR1DpQ47oDPi8xqt_Bq54ywpTvZkH9uJwHRZkDbf-A@mail.gmail.com> <CAEMK1ubU0tD37yz0mKuOOP5n5uQ5pjLdLgY1OJWHGNh-iGcScw@mail.gmail.com> <dddbfebf-c5d0-6386-3a1d-c38526fdfba3@free.fr> <CAEMK1ubKn73gfM34yswmuAHzmOneXF9aRQ7uRnJ3DnNz56nZLA@mail.gmail.com> <CAAP42hAsrPvE-bMLdYhkvX516wBKMwCjNJaOhcZ14LQPr+Eh7A@mail.gmail.com> <9C150616-AF6B-4FE2-81D8-1535BE52E961@lodderstedt.net> <CAKhDPzNKBbqN0o-g1hF5Ee8XmFrtKPAHgcajDtmeNu83KJ9eZQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKhDPzNKBbqN0o-g1hF5Ee8XmFrtKPAHgcajDtmeNu83KJ9eZQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dima Postnikov <dima@postnikov.net>
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2020 01:05:07 +1000
Message-ID: <CAEMK1uaU=vLQYQAS2J9tj5Cf3=sYSRR7O-Q0iS65FaCjqWk9AA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jeff Craig <jeffcraig=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten=40lodderstedt.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, William Denniss <wdenniss=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, oauth <oauth@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000baa32c05ae55f65f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/VeXCHyLAGPoo42Zm3GC9vznIlDY>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] third party applications
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 02 Sep 2020 15:05:21 -0000

I agree, "limited access" makes sense. I am happy to create a PR, if required.


Current wording is:


The OAuth 2.1 authorization framework enables a*n* *third-party*
application to obtain limited access to an HTTP service, either on
   behalf of a resource owner by orchestrating an approval interaction
   between the resource owner and the HTTP service, or by allowing the
   *third-party* application to obtain access on its own behalf.  This
   specification replaces and obsoletes the OAuth 2.0 Authorization
   Framework described in RFC 6749 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6749>.


On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 12:33 AM Jeff Craig <jeffcraig=
40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 8:53 AM Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten=
> 40lodderstedt.net@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
>> > On 2. Sep 2020, at 05:58, William Denniss <wdenniss=
>> 40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>> > On the subject, in first party cases the access may not be all that
>> "limited", I wonder if it should read more genericly "an application to
>> obtain access to an HTTP service"?
>>
>> I suggest to stick with “limited” since privilege restriction is always a
>> good idea.
>>
>
> I'm inclined to agree, scopes are a key part of the OAuth model, and while
> nothing precludes a "full account access" scope, I do think that the idea
> of privilege restriction is worth infusing the document with.
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email