Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter
Marius Scurtescu <mscurtescu@google.com> Thu, 15 April 2010 19:39 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 82DFA3A69E3 for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Apr 2010 12:39:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.934
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.934 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.043, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 ITBq3CGBQFil for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Apr 2010 12:39:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [216.239.44.51]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 938973A6A3B for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Apr 2010 12:38:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hpaq12.eem.corp.google.com (hpaq12.eem.corp.google.com [10.3.21.12]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id o3FJcp00011436 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Apr 2010 12:38:51 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1271360331; bh=Np9DMCVLkHhccgajruHP7yLnj5w=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=DAbQqTerJxWzDvHDPGu6FQfI24s80G8A++pqOWuu0VMdkQoNHYooHIKhBpL7hFpEv udy0ekmzeJ/z9bIKEwUIw==
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=M1WZPdZ2nkS/f5aPqSPclNNQqpkP4bF7OpvQVfmb+aYccTofxM25in78c74dWOCWs xW1/YPZPBd1EqXvpSH47w==
Received: from pwi7 (pwi7.prod.google.com [10.241.219.7]) by hpaq12.eem.corp.google.com with ESMTP id o3FJc4R4015796 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Apr 2010 21:38:49 +0200
Received: by pwi7 with SMTP id 7so1359315pwi.21 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Apr 2010 12:38:48 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.141.107.2 with HTTP; Thu, 15 Apr 2010 12:38:28 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <m2pfd6741651004151226r925959f4u622396e63c950a1e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C7ECB1F7.32357%eran@hueniverse.com> <m2n74caaad21004151220qac3a829em2dc17f1c93b6efa1@mail.gmail.com> <m2pfd6741651004151226r925959f4u622396e63c950a1e@mail.gmail.com>
From: Marius Scurtescu <mscurtescu@google.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 12:38:28 -0700
Received: by 10.141.124.10 with SMTP id b10mr963340rvn.176.1271360328194; Thu, 15 Apr 2010 12:38:48 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <h2o74caaad21004151238w60c3afd3td8dccdd8a7127a4a@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Recordon <recordond@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
X-System-Of-Record: true
Cc: OAuth WG <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter
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, 15 Apr 2010 19:39:09 -0000
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 >> >
- [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter Marius Scurtescu
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter David Recordon
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter Marius Scurtescu
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter David Recordon
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter Justin Smith
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter Manger, James H
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter Justin Smith
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter Manger, James H
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter Justin Smith
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter Marius Scurtescu
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter Manger, James H
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter Mark Mcgloin
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter Manger, James H
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter Justin Smith
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter Torsten Lodderstedt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter Dick Hardt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter Manger, James H
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter Torsten Lodderstedt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter David Recordon
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter Dick Hardt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter David Recordon
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter Marius Scurtescu
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter Luke Shepard
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter Dick Hardt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter Dick Hardt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter Anthony Nadalin
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter Torsten Lodderstedt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter Evan Gilbert
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter Justin Richer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter Eran Hammer-Lahav