; Dick Hardt
Cc: OAuth WG
Subject: RE: [OAUTH-WG] Scope :: Was: Extensibility for OAuth?
I'm in favor of having a spaces separated list of tokens.
The only case I can think of where the client needs to handle
the scope as anything other than opaque is when it is
accessing multiple services
Rosenstock; Dick Hardt
Cc: OAuth WG
Subject: RE: [OAUTH-WG] Scope :: Was: Extensibility for OAuth?
I'm in favor of having a spaces separated list of tokens.
The only case I can think of where the client needs to handle
the scope as anything other than opaque is when
); ext Lukas
Rosenstock; Dick Hardt
Cc: OAuth WG
Subject: RE: [OAUTH-WG] Scope :: Was: Extensibility for OAuth?
I'm in favor of having a spaces separated list of tokens.
The only case I can think of where the client needs to handle
the scope as anything other than opaque is when
, June 24, 2010 8:15 PM
To: Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo); ext Lukas
Rosenstock; Dick Hardt
Cc: OAuth WG
Subject: RE: [OAUTH-WG] Scope :: Was: Extensibility for OAuth?
I'm in favor of having a spaces separated list of tokens.
The only case I can think of where the client needs
To: Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo); ext Lukas
Rosenstock; Dick Hardt
Cc: OAuth WG
Subject: RE: [OAUTH-WG] Scope :: Was: Extensibility for OAuth?
I'm in favor of having a spaces separated list of tokens.
The only case I can think of where the client needs to handle
the scope as anything other than
: [OAUTH-WG] Scope :: Was: Extensibility for OAuth?
I'm in favor of having a spaces separated list of tokens.
The only case I can think of where the client needs to handle
the scope as anything other than opaque is when it is
accessing multiple services. To reduce the numebr of login
events
: [OAUTH-WG] Scope :: Was: Extensibility for OAuth?
I agree with Dick that the scope should remain out of scope for OAuth.
;-) Having a shared parameter here gives the illusion of interoperability, but
because there's no common understanding of permissible scopes, there's no
way to guarantee
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Scope :: Was: Extensibility for OAuth?
To clarify, the goal is to reserve a namespace for future use so that near
term
implementations won't collide?
I expect the standardization of scope values to not be in OAuth, but in
standardized APIs that use OAuth, so
That's coming in -09.
EHL
-Original Message-
From: Dick Hardt [mailto:dick.ha...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, June 25, 2010 11:19 AM
To: Eran Hammer-Lahav
Cc: Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo); OAuth WG
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Scope :: Was: Extensibility for OAuth?
I'm ok
: Friday, June 25, 2010 8:50 AM
To: Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)
Cc: OAuth WG
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Scope :: Was: Extensibility for OAuth?
To clarify, the goal is to reserve a namespace for future use so that near
term
implementations won't collide?
I expect the standardization
Wasn't there some concensus that URIs would be good for scope? They
have in-built namespacing ...
Lukas
2010/6/23 Dick Hardt dick.ha...@gmail.com:
On 2010-06-22, at 11:07 PM, Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) wrote:
scope
OPTIONAL. The scope of the access request expressed as
-Original Message-
From: ext Lukas Rosenstock [mailto:l...@lukasrosenstock.net]
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 10:49 AM
To: Dick Hardt
Cc: Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo); OAuth WG
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Scope :: Was: Extensibility for OAuth?
Wasn't there some concensus that URIs
I recall there being consensus on the space delimiter to make it so that
URIs could be used easily as scope parameters. I know that I,
personally, would rather have keywords in our implementation than URIs,
so I'm very much in favor of keeping it unspecified.
-- justin
On Thu, 2010-06-24 at
10:49 AM
To: Dick Hardt
Cc: Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo); OAuth WG
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Scope :: Was: Extensibility for OAuth?
Wasn't there some concensus that URIs would be good for scope? They
have in-built namespacing ...
Lukas
2010/6/23 Dick Hardt dick.ha...@gmail.com
-boun...@ietf.org]
On Behalf Of Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 3:58 AM
To: ext Lukas Rosenstock; Dick Hardt
Cc: OAuth WG
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Scope :: Was: Extensibility for OAuth?
The question is whether one would ever want to have a
standardized
On 2010-06-22, at 11:07 PM, Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) wrote:
scope
OPTIONAL. The scope of the access request expressed as a list
of space-delimited strings. The value of the scope parameter
is defined by the authorization server. If the value contains
16 matches
Mail list logo