Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter

Even put it on the wiki (http://wiki.oauth.net/) if you don't want to
deal with IETF formatting yet. Eran and I are happy to clean stuff up.
:)

On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 12:51 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com> wrote:
> 1. Write it
> 2. Comply with naming policy of new parameters*
> 3. Publish and get feedback.
> 4. Fix and repeat #3 as needed.
> 5. Register new parameter name*
>
> :-)
>
> * Pending new parameter name policy
>
> For now just call it ‘scope’.
>
> EHL
>
>
> On 4/15/10 12:38 PM, "Marius Scurtescu" <mscurtescu@google.com> wrote:
>
> Sure. Do we have a mechanism to define extensions?
>
> Marius
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 12:26 PM, David Recordon <recordond@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Marius, why don't we write a one page spec which defines scope as an
>> extension? We end up with agreement around if scope is a useful
>> parameter and a simple parameter name for multiple vendors (because it
>> is an extension). Since you seem to be advocating for including scope
>> the most, would you mind trying to write out a few paragraphs?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> --David
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 12:20 PM, Marius Scurtescu
>> <mscurtescu@google.com> wrote:
>>> I still have not seen any arguments why scope structure is needed for
>>> interop. Client and server side libraries do not need to understand
>>> the scope, they just pass it around. Client and server code do need to
>>> understand the scope, but we are not dealing with that.
>>>
>>> Yes, a scope parameter does not buy much, it only prevents each authz
>>> server from inventing their own custom parameter.
>>>
>>> Marius
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>
>