> On 2. Sep 2020, at 05:58, William Denniss 
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> +1 to drop the "third party", there are valid first party use-cases. 
> 
> On the subject, in first party cases the access may not be all that 
> "limited", I wonder if it should read more genericly "an application to 
> obtain access to an HTTP service"?

I suggest to stick with “limited” since privilege restriction is always a good 
idea. 

> 
> On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 5:20 PM Dima Postnikov <[email protected]> wrote:
> Good point Denis, thanks
> 
> The OAuth 2.1 authorization framework enables an third-party
>    application to obtain limited access to an HTTP service, either on
>    behalf of a resource owner by orchestrating an approval interaction
>    between the resource owner and the HTTP service, or by allowing the
>    
> third-party
>  application to obtain access on its own behalf.  This
>    specification replaces and obsoletes the OAuth 2.0 Authorization
>    Framework described in 
> RFC 6749.
> 
> And an additional section is required to describe scenarios where this 
> framework works well and scenarios when it doesn't.
> 
> On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 12:57 AM Denis <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello Dima,
> 
> Not exactly. 
> 
> Change :
>  or by allowing the third-party application
> into:
> 
>         or by allowing the application
> 
> Denis
> 
>> Thank everyone for your feedback.
>> 
>> So the abstract could look like this:
>> 
>> The OAuth 2.1 authorization framework enables an third-party
>>    application to obtain limited access to an HTTP service, either on
>>    behalf of a resource owner by orchestrating an approval interaction
>>    between the resource owner and the HTTP service, or by allowing the
>>    third-party application to obtain access on its own behalf.  This
>>    specification replaces and obsoletes the OAuth 2.0 Authorization
>>    Framework described in 
>> RFC 6749.
>> 
>> And an additional section is required to describe scenarios where this 
>> framework works well and scenarios when it doesn't.
>> 
>> On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 2:37 AM Aaron Parecki <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I agree. While the original motivations for OAuth were to support 
>> third-party apps, it's proven to be useful in many other kinds of situations 
>> as well, even when it's a "first-party" app but the OAuth server is operated 
>> by a different organization than the APIs. I don't think the abstract needs 
>> any qualification on this and would only confuse people further. Any 
>> clarifications of which situations are appropriate for using OAuth could be 
>> explored in a different section in the spec.
>> 
>> Aaron Parecki
>> 
>> On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 3:02 AM Torsten Lodderstedt 
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I agree. OAuth works for 3rd as well as 1st parties as well. 
>> 
>> > On 28. Aug 2020, at 05:26, Dima Postnikov <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > 
>> > Hi,
>> > 
>> > Can "third-party" term be removed from the specification?
>> > 
>> > The standard and associated best practices apply to other applications 
>> > that act on behalf of a resource owner, too (internal, "first-party" and 
>> > etc).
>> > 
>> > Regards,
>> > 
>> > Dima
>> > 
>> > The OAuth 2.1 authorization framework enables a third-party
>> > 
>> >    application to obtain limited access to an HTTP service, either on
>> >    behalf of a resource owner by orchestrating an approval interaction
>> >    between the resource owner and the HTTP service, or by allowing the
>> >    third-party application to obtain access on its own behalf.  This
>> >    specification replaces and obsoletes the OAuth 2.0 Authorization
>> >    Framework described in 
>> > RFC 6749.
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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

_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

Reply via email to