Re: [OAUTH-WG] New Version Notification for draft-lodderstedt-oauth-rar-02.txt
> On 8. Oct 2019, at 16:49, George Fletcher
> wrote:
>
> In general, it's difficult to determine how to extend for new types or if
> they should be wrapped up in "data" somehow.
>
> {
> "type":
> "https://example.com/my_field;
> ,
> "actions":[
> "read"
> ],
> "my_field": {
> "id": ""
> }
> }
>
> I'm assuming the above is perfectly legit and the intended way for the spec
> to be extended?
That’s the intended way to go. Do you have an idea how we could convey that
even better in the text?
> If not, what is the expected extension mechanism?
>
> Thanks,
> George
>
> On 10/2/19 11:45 AM, Brian Campbell wrote:
>> I guess we differ in our opinion of how remiss that would be. But given what
>> you've got in there now, the more narrow point I was trying to make was to
>> say that I don't think "data" is defined or explained well enough to be
>> helpful.
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 4:33 PM Justin Richer wrote:
>> I think that we need to define :some: common set to data elements in this
>> spec, in order to help people who are using this and trying to apply it to
>> their APIs do so in vaguely consistent ways. The details of which parts we
>> standardize on are still, I think, up for grabs. I’d be happy to have a
>> better name than “data” for this aspect, but I think there’s value in
>> defining this kind of thing. Like in the financial space, it’s the
>> difference between “transactions” and “accounts”. Or in the medical space,
>> there’s “demographics” and “appointments” and “testResults”. This is a very,
>> very, very common way to slice up OAuth-protected resources, and we’d be
>> remiss to leave it undefined and just have every API developer need to come
>> up with their own version of the same thing.
>>
>> — Justin
>>
>>> On Oct 1, 2019, at 2:40 PM, Brian Campbell
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm not entirely sold on the draft attempting to define this set of common
>>> data elements in the first place. But that said, I think (similar to
>>> George?) I'm struggling with "data" more than the others. The definition in
>>> the -02 draft is an "array of strings representing the kinds of data being
>>> requested from the resource" and I'm honestly having a hard time
>>> understanding what that actually means or how it would be used in practice.
>>> And I'm not sure roughly equating it to “what kind of thing I want” helped
>>> me understand any better.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 5:34 PM Justin Richer wrote:
>>> The idea behind the “locations”, “actions”, “data”, and “identifier” data
>>> element types mirrors what I’ve seen “scope” used for in the wild. They
>>> roughly equate to “where something is”, “what I want to do with it”, “what
>>> kind of thing I want”, and “the exact thing I want”, respectively. I’m
>>> completely open for better names, and have even been thinking “datatype”
>>> might be better than just “data” for the third one.
>>>
>>> As for encoding, I think that form encoding makes sense because it’s the
>>> simplest possible encoding that will work. I personally don’t see a need to
>>> armor this part of the request with base64, as it is in JOSE, and doing so
>>> would make it one more step removed from easy developer understanding.
>>>
>>> -- Justin Richer
>>>
>>> Bespoke Engineering
>>> +1 (617) 564-3801
>>> https://bspk.io/
>>>
>>>
>>>
On Sep 24, 2019, at 1:45 PM, George Fletcher wrote:
Just two questions...
1. What is the rationale that 'data' is really an array of arbitrary
top-level claims? I find looking at the spec and not finding a 'data'
section a little confusing.
2. What is the rationale for sending the JSON object as a urlencoded JSON
string rather than a base64url encoded JSON string? The later would likely
be smaller and easier to read:)
Thanks,
George
On 9/21/19 1:51 PM, Torsten Lodderstedt wrote:
> Hi all,??
>
> I just published a draft about ???OAuth 2.0 Rich Authorization
> Requests??? (formerly known as ???structured scopes???).??
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lodderstedt-oauth-rar-02
>
> It specifies a new parameter?authorization_details"??that is used to
> carry fine grained authorization data in the OAuth authorization request.
> This mechanisms was designed based on experiences gathered in the field
> of open banking, e.g. PSD2, and is intended to make the implementation of
> rich and transaction oriented authorization requests much easier than
> with current OAuth 2.0.
>
> I???m happy that Justin Richer and Brian Campbell joined me as authors of
> this draft. We would would like to thank Daniel Fett, Sebastian Ebling,
> Dave Tonge, Mike Jones, Nat Sakimura, and Rob Otto for their valuable
> feedback during the preparation of this draft.
>
> We look forward to getting your feedback.??
>
Re: [OAUTH-WG] New Version Notification for draft-lodderstedt-oauth-rar-02.txt
In general, it's difficult to determine how to extend for new types or
if they should be wrapped up in "data" somehow.
|{ "type":"https://example.com/my_field;, "actions":[ "read" ],
"my_field": { "id": "" } }|
I'm assuming the above is perfectly legit and the intended way for the
spec to be extended? If not, what is the expected extension mechanism?
Thanks,
George
On 10/2/19 11:45 AM, Brian Campbell wrote:
I guess we differ in our opinion of how remiss that would be. But
given what you've got in there now, the more narrow point I was trying
to make was to say that I don't think "data" is defined or explained
well enough to be helpful.
On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 4:33 PM Justin Richer > wrote:
I think that we need to define :some: common set to data elements
in this spec, in order to help people who are using this and
trying to apply it to their APIs do so in vaguely consistent ways.
The details of which parts we standardize on are still, I think,
up for grabs. I???d be happy to have a better name than ???data??? for
this aspect, but I think there???s value in defining this kind of
thing. Like in the financial space, it???s the difference between
???transactions??? and ???accounts???. Or in the medical space, there???s
???demographics??? and ???appointments??? and ???testResults???. This is a
very, very, very common way to slice up OAuth-protected resources,
and we???d be remiss to leave it undefined and just have every API
developer need to come up with their own version of the same thing.
??? Justin
On Oct 1, 2019, at 2:40 PM, Brian Campbell
mailto:bcampb...@pingidentity.com>>
wrote:
I'm not entirely sold on the draft attempting to define this set
of common data elements in the first place. But that said, I
think (similar to George?) I'm struggling with "data" more than
the others. The definition in the -02 draft is an "array of
strings representing the kinds of data being requested from the
resource" and I'm honestly having a hard time understanding what
that actually means or how it would be used in practice. And I'm
not sure roughly equating it to ???what kind of thing I want???
helped me understand any better.
On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 5:34 PM Justin Richer mailto:jus...@bspk.io>> wrote:
The idea behind the ???locations???, ???actions???, ???data???, and
???identifier??? data element types mirrors what I???ve seen
???scope??? used for in the wild. They roughly equate to ???where
something is???, ???what I want to do with it???, ???what kind of
thing I want???, and ???the exact thing I want???, respectively.
I???m completely open for better names, and have even been
thinking ???datatype??? might be better than just ???data??? for the
third one.
As for encoding, I think that form encoding makes sense
because it???s the simplest possible encoding that will work. I
personally don???t see a need to armor this part of the request
with base64, as it is in JOSE, and doing so would make it one
more step removed from easy developer understanding.
-- Justin Richer
Bespoke Engineering
+1 (617) 564-3801
https://bspk.io/
On Sep 24, 2019, at 1:45 PM, George Fletcher
mailto:gffle...@aol.com>> wrote:
Just two questions...
1. What is the rationale that 'data' is really an array of
arbitrary top-level claims? I find looking at the spec and
not finding a 'data' section a little confusing.
2. What is the rationale for sending the JSON object as a
urlencoded JSON string rather than a base64url encoded JSON
string? The later would likely be smaller and easier to read:)
Thanks,
George
On 9/21/19 1:51 PM, Torsten Lodderstedt wrote:
Hi all,??
I just published a draft about ???OAuth 2.0 Rich
Authorization Requests??? (formerly known as ???structured
scopes???).??
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lodderstedt-oauth-rar-02
It specifies a new
parameter?authorization_details"??that is used to carry
fine grained authorization data in the OAuth authorization
request. This mechanisms was designed based on experiences
gathered in the field of open banking, e.g. PSD2, and is
intended to make the implementation of rich and transaction
oriented authorization requests much easier than with
current OAuth 2.0.
I???m happy that Justin Richer and Brian Campbell joined me
as authors of this draft. We would would like to thank
Daniel Fett, Sebastian Ebling, Dave Tonge, Mike Jones, Nat
Sakimura, and Rob Otto for their valuable feedback during
the preparation of this draft.
We look forward to getting your
