Re-delegation is something people asked for since we started talking about 
OAuth. There is also a draft I-D about it. This is explicitly out of scope for 
the core spec (but not something that should stop us from having a discussion).

The main concern is how should the resource owner express their approval for 
such arrangement?

EHL

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
> Of Dick Hardt
> Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 7:34 PM
> To: OAuth WG ([email protected])
> Subject: [OAUTH-WG] delegating access to another client
> 
> Twitter has an interesting use case that may become common: one client
> needs to delegate access to another client. Similar to the 'modify' method
> where the scope of the access token can be modified, the 'delegate' method
> allows a client to request delegation to another client (the delegate). Here 
> is
> some proposed copy for the request:
> 
> type
>       REQUIRED. The parameter value MUST be set to delegate
> 
> client_id
>       REQUIRED. The client identifier as described in Section 3.4.
> 
> client_secret
>       REQUIRED if the client was issued a secret. The client secret.
> 
> refresh_token
>       REQUIRED. The refresh token associated with the client.
> 
> delegate_id
>       REQUIRED. The client identifier of the delegate
> 
> scope
>       OPTIONAL. The scope the client is requesting for the delegate.
> 
> secret_type
>       OPTIONAL. The access token secret type as described by Section 8.3.
> If omitted, the authorization server will issue a bearer token (an access 
> token
> without a matching secret) as described by Section 8.2.
> 
> There a couple of choices for the flows for how a successful delegation is
> conveyed to the delegate. The AS could return a delegation code that is
> similar to a verification code and the delegate acquires an access token
> similar to 3.6.2 Alternatively, the AS could return an delegation token that 
> is
> used similar to a refresh token to obtain an access token and refresh token.
> 
> Do people think this is worth adding to the spec? It seems to be a simple
> addition and allows us to standardize what is emerging as a common
> capability.
> 
> -- Dick
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

Reply via email to