Does anyone have an implementation example where comma separated strings wouldn't work for the scope parameter?
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Dick Hardt <[email protected]> wrote: > I would leave that to be AS defined -- different delimiters make sense in > different environments -- it could be an expression -- just make it a string > -- it will need to be URL encoded which will deal with any magic characters. > > -- Diok > > > On 2010-04-18, at 6:38 PM, David Recordon wrote: > >> 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
