Re: [OAUTH-WG] Scope - Coming to a Consensus

Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com> Sun, 09 May 2010 17:44 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 B72C23A6A84 for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 May 2010 10:44:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.186
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.186 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.187, BAYES_50=0.001]
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 6jaY8MInkxAU for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 May 2010 10:44:56 -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 A5B443A69F1 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Sun, 9 May 2010 10:44:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 17538 invoked from network); 9 May 2010 17:44:44 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.ex1.secureserver.net) (72.167.180.19) by p3plex1out01.prod.phx3.secureserver.net with SMTP; 9 May 2010 17:44:44 -0000
Received: from P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET ([10.6.135.20]) by P3PW5EX1HT001.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET ([72.167.180.19]) with mapi; Sun, 9 May 2010 10:44:44 -0700
From: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
To: "Manger, James H" <James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com>, "OAuth WG (oauth@ietf.org)" <oauth@ietf.org>
Date: Sun, 9 May 2010 10:44:44 -0700
Thread-Topic: [OAUTH-WG] Scope - Coming to a Consensus
Thread-Index: Acrpk6vOPnVOdWKjSzqddhqyA+nnWgBJrrYwATkATnA=
Message-ID: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E72343B3AB46E0D@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>
References: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E723439321772EF@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET> <C80078D0.2D681%atom@yahoo-inc.com> <AANLkTikJBx-BwdLvgszIhSo9cf5WsJZvtjrWznei44Te@mail.gmail.com> <60C3123B-4FCF-425C-A808-AFB4745AECC6@facebook.com> <CD5AE76F-61F4-43EA-B97C-5A575C8AA674@gmail.com> <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E1126277CFE7@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com>
In-Reply-To: <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E1126277CFE7@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.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
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Scope - Coming to a Consensus
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: Sun, 09 May 2010 17:44:57 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: oauth-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Manger, James H
> Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 6:24 AM
> To: OAuth WG (oauth@ietf.org)
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Scope - Coming to a Consensus
> 
> A comma is a better separator here.
> Allow URIs as scopes -- as long as the chosen URIs don't have commas. This
> isn't a big restriction on services.

It's an odd restriction that violated the server's name space.

> [If a service provider really needs to include arbitrary URIs in an authorization
> URI they can still do so by defining another parameter, say "urls". We are
> barely defining any semantics for "scope" -- at least none that libraries can
> use -- so not much is lost in using a different parameter name.]

All this just to use a comma separator?
 
> A space-separated list (encoded as per the transport) sounds nice at a logical
> level, but is just a bit unnecessarily awkward. The only place scope values
> appear is in an authz URI so the only encoding is URI-encoding. Are the
> spaces escaped as "%20" or "+"? Even if we try to pick one answer I suspect
> both will occur (it depends on which part of the software builds the authz URI
> -- ie prepare for interop glitches).
> Any spaces in a URI used as a scope value needs to be %-escaped twice. It
> seems unnecessary to even allow this.

They would have to be encoded twice either way. Form-encoded query (according to the HTML 4 specification) allows only '.', '_', '-', and '~' to remain unencoded. Everything else must be encoded including a comma. The fact that you can send a comma in the query doesn't make it a valid way to transmit form-encoded parameters.

EHL