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" <[email protected]> wrote: Sure. Do we have a mechanism to define extensions? Marius On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 12:26 PM, David Recordon <[email protected]> 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 > <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >> 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 >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> OAuth mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >> >
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
