Return-Path: 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 C4BF721F87A4 for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 14:33:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.553 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.553 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.045, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SJqXWiQWaP3M for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 14:33:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtpksrv1.mitre.org (smtpksrv1.mitre.org [198.49.146.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F29D721F875F for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 14:33:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtpksrv1.mitre.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 76B591F0C43; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 17:33:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from IMCCAS02.MITRE.ORG (imccas02.mitre.org [129.83.29.79]) by smtpksrv1.mitre.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D7CB1F0C36; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 17:33:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from [10.146.15.29] (129.83.31.58) by IMCCAS02.MITRE.ORG (129.83.29.79) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.318.4; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 17:33:58 -0500 Message-ID: <51099FBA.1060608@mitre.org> Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 17:33:30 -0500 From: Justin Richer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130106 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Todd W Lainhart References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------090107050104060407020405" X-Originating-IP: [129.83.31.58] Cc: IETF oauth WG Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] draft-richer-oauth-introspection-01 scope syntax X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OAUTH WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 22:33:59 -0000 --------------090107050104060407020405 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I should add that this is also a bit of an artifact of our implementation. Internally, we parse and store scopes as collections of discrete strings and process them that way. So serialization of that value naturally fell to a JSON list. -- Justin On 01/30/2013 05:29 PM, Justin Richer wrote: > It's not meant to follow the same syntax. Instead, it's making use of > the JSON object structure to avoid additional parsing of the values on > the client side. > > We could fairly easily define it as the same space-delimited string if > enough people want to keep the scope format consistent. > > -- Justin > > On 01/30/2013 05:27 PM, Todd W Lainhart wrote: >> That the scope syntax in draft-richer-oauth-introspection-01 is >> different than RFC 6749 Section 3.3, as in: >> >> >> "scope": ["read", "write", "dolphin"], >> >> vs. >> >> scope = scope-token *( SP scope-token ) >> scope-token = 1*( %x21 / %x23-5B / %x5D-7E ) >> >> Should introspection-01 follow the 6749 syntax for scopes? >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 --------------090107050104060407020405 Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I should add that this is also a bit of an artifact of our implementation. Internally, we parse and store scopes as collections of discrete strings and process them that way. So serialization of that value naturally fell to a JSON list.

 -- Justin

On 01/30/2013 05:29 PM, Justin Richer wrote:
It's not meant to follow the same syntax. Instead, it's making use of the JSON object structure to avoid additional parsing of the values on the client side.

We could fairly easily define it as the same space-delimited string if enough people want to keep the scope format consistent.

 -- Justin

On 01/30/2013 05:27 PM, Todd W Lainhart wrote:
That the scope syntax in draft-richer-oauth-introspection-01 is different than RFC 6749 Section 3.3, as in:


   "scope": ["read", "write", "dolphin"],

vs.

  scope = scope-token *( SP scope-token )
     scope-token = 1*( %x21 / %x23-5B / %x5D-7E )

Should introspection-01 follow the 6749 syntax for scopes?
 




_______________________________________________
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

--------------090107050104060407020405--