I think we need to add a bit more definition to the scope parameter. Maybe as simple as a comma-separated list of strings.
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 6:12 PM, Dick Hardt <[email protected]> wrote: > The scope parameter was included in WRAP at the request of library and AS > implementors to standardize a commonly included parameters. > The client_id parameter seems similar to the scope parameter. The meaning of > client_id is not defined in the spec and is AS specific. A client_id that a > developer uses with one AS may be different at a different AS. > The argument that defining the scope parameter will cause more confusion is > confusing itself. Why would a developer think they can use the same scope at > two different AS? The developer has to manage different client_ids, > different endpoint URIs and different PRs: not to mention different APIs. > Having a different scope between AS seems natural. Having a vendor defined > parameter name for different AS that all mean scope seems suboptimal. > A related example. Email has a subject parameter, we all have a similar idea > what it means, and it can be used differently in different situations, but > it was useful to create the placeholder for the optional subject of an email > message. > Proposal: put optional scope parameter back into all calls to obtain an > access token. Put optional scope parameter into calls to refresh an access > token. > -- Dick > > 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
