I have some serious problems with this document: - I fundamentally disagree about the scopes defined for mail, calendar, and contact. One of the biggest problems with the scopes today, is the lack of the scope "update/modify/delete BUT only the emails, contacts, and calendar meetings that the app has created". I don't want to give *access to delete all my calendars* just so an app can *create calendar appointments in one calendar*.
For me, scopes for calendar and contacts are already broken by design, and this document actually makes it worse. Take the scope *urn:ietf:params:oauth:scope:calendar:update:* > Grants permission to create, modify, and delete calendars and events on > the user's behalf. The creation, modification, and deletion of calendars must be completely independent from the creation, modification, and deletion of calendars. And most problematically, *as a user*, I would only want to give access to do this one calendar at a time. Because of this we really need to define resource based syntax inside of OAuth spec to replace the scopes. In conclusion, this document only sets out to standardize the irresponsible behavior of apps utilizing scopes today, cementing the current paradigm rather than replacing it with something that actually works correctly. Using OAuth scopes alone for this access, is the part that is wrong, not that it isn't standardized. In some cases, an incremental approach might help get to the perfect solution, but I don't see this document helping to make that happen. If it does anything for me, this prevents forward progress in preference of keeping exactly what we already have. On Sun, Jul 20, 2025 at 7:42 AM Clinton Bunch <cdbu...@emeraldgroupware.org> wrote: > I submitted https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bunch-groupware-scopes/ > > This is a proposal of standard OAUTH2 scopes to support the loosely > coupled world of mail, calendaring, and contacts servers and clients. > > The current state is that every Authorization Server defines their own > scopes for these groupware services, leading client developers to hard > code these scopes, which, in practicality, limits them to supporting > OAUTH2 authentication for only a dozen or so providers big enough to > strong arm them into it. > > This is the remaining barrier to wide spread deployment of OAUTH2 > authentication for groupware services. The other half of the problem, > Client Registration, is solved by RFC 7591, OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Client > Registration Protocol. > > With these two pieces in place, Authorization Servers and clients can > begin to implement this advanced authorization process. > > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list -- oauth@ietf.org > To unsubscribe send an email to oauth-le...@ietf.org >
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list -- oauth@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to oauth-le...@ietf.org
