IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter

Luke Shepard <lshepard@facebook.com> Mon, 19 April 2010 04:35 UTC

Return-Path: <lshepard@facebook.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 66D063A6A8A for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 Apr 2010 21:35:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.324
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.324 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.548, BAYES_05=-1.11, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 mY5dmGi0fQug for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 Apr 2010 21:35:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout-snc1.facebook.com (mailout-snc1.facebook.com [69.63.179.25]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 964323A6A70 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Sun, 18 Apr 2010 21:35:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.thefacebook.com ([192.168.18.212]) by pp01.snc1.tfbnw.net (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o3J4Z3U6030285 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Sun, 18 Apr 2010 21:35:03 -0700
Received: from sc-hub01.TheFacebook.com (192.168.18.104) by sc-hub04.TheFacebook.com (192.168.18.212) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.0.689.0; Sun, 18 Apr 2010 21:35:20 -0700
Received: from SC-MBXC1.TheFacebook.com ([192.168.18.102]) by sc-hub01.TheFacebook.com ([192.168.18.104]) with mapi; Sun, 18 Apr 2010 21:35:20 -0700
From: Luke Shepard <lshepard@facebook.com>
To: Marius Scurtescu <mscurtescu@google.com>, David Recordon <recordond@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 21:35:16 -0700
Thread-Topic: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter
Thread-Index: Acrfdpv03rGmmB+nTBWhgqHa/oEZ/AAAietw
Message-ID: <2513A610118CC14C8E622C376C8DEC93D54D66DDF6@SC-MBXC1.TheFacebook.com>
References: <C7ECB1F7.32357%eran@hueniverse.com> <h2l987bab591004181812ve43197f9la55f59b753bd2959@mail.gmail.com> <o2wfd6741651004181838ob1dda59bpf7cb88d3b1892c1d@mail.gmail.com> <1676FB17-48B2-4125-991C-CE996C4DE66B@gmail.com> <g2sfd6741651004181904q2f242fcexf2f7892c9b512068@mail.gmail.com> <z2o74caaad21004182112he72e1a33i4397e2d5333a0c13@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <z2o74caaad21004182112he72e1a33i4397e2d5333a0c13@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
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=1.12.8161:2.4.5, 1.2.40, 4.0.166 definitions=2010-04-18_05:2010-02-06, 2010-04-18, 2010-04-18 signatures=0
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: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 04:35:40 -0000

David Recordon <recordond@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Does anyone have an implementation example where comma separated
>> strings wouldn't work for the scope parameter?

Marius wrote:
> Yes, Google currently is using a space separated list of URIs.
> Why does the format matter?

I agree. Facebook uses comma-separate strings, Google uses space-separated URLs- why is this a problem?

It seems we have three options:

1/ We leave the scope parameter as an Auth Server-specific, opaque parameter.
2/ We all agree on a format and spec for the scope parameter.
3/ We drop the scope parameter and make each server define their own, non-standard scope param.

I think David proposed #2 as a way to address concerns on this list that #1 would be a hindrance to interop. But I personally vote for #1 now - we would add a spec later if it proves to be a problem.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email