On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 7:04 PM, David Recordon <record...@gmail.com> wrote: > Does anyone have an implementation example where comma separated > strings wouldn't work for the scope parameter?
Yes, Google currently is using a space separated list of URIs. Why does the format matter? Marius > > > On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Dick Hardt <dick.ha...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I would leave that to be AS defined -- different delimiters make sense in >> different environments -- it could be an expression -- just make it a string >> -- it will need to be URL encoded which will deal with any magic characters. >> >> -- Diok >> >> >> On 2010-04-18, at 6:38 PM, David Recordon wrote: >> >>> I think we need to add a bit more definition to the scope parameter. >>> Maybe as simple as a comma-separated list of strings. >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 6:12 PM, Dick Hardt <dick.ha...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> The scope parameter was included in WRAP at the request of library and AS >>>> implementors to standardize a commonly included parameters. >>>> The client_id parameter seems similar to the scope parameter. The meaning >>>> of >>>> client_id is not defined in the spec and is AS specific. A client_id that a >>>> developer uses with one AS may be different at a different AS. >>>> The argument that defining the scope parameter will cause more confusion is >>>> confusing itself. Why would a developer think they can use the same scope >>>> at >>>> two different AS? The developer has to manage different client_ids, >>>> different endpoint URIs and different PRs: not to mention different APIs. >>>> Having a different scope between AS seems natural. Having a vendor defined >>>> parameter name for different AS that all mean scope seems suboptimal. >>>> A related example. Email has a subject parameter, we all have a similar >>>> idea >>>> what it means, and it can be used differently in different situations, but >>>> it was useful to create the placeholder for the optional subject of an >>>> email >>>> message. >>>> Proposal: put optional scope parameter back into all calls to obtain an >>>> access token. Put optional scope parameter into calls to refresh an access >>>> token. >>>> -- Dick >>>> >>>> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 12:07 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav <e...@hueniverse.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> WRAP includes a loosely defined scope parameter which allows for >>>>> vendor-specific (and non-interoperable) use cases. This was requested by >>>>> many working group members to be included in OAuth 2.0 with the argument >>>>> that while it doesn't help interop, it makes using clients easier. >>>>> >>>>> The problem with a general purpose scope parameter that is completely >>>>> undefined in structure is that it hurts interop more than it helps. It >>>>> creates an expectation that values can be used across services, and it >>>>> cannot be used without another spec defining its content and structure. >>>>> Such >>>>> as spec can simply define its own parameter. >>>>> >>>>> In addition, it is not clear what belongs in scope (list of resources, >>>>> access type, duration of access, right to share data, rights to >>>>> re-delegate). >>>>> >>>>> The rules should be that if a parameter cannot be used without another >>>>> documentation, it should be defined in that other document. >>>>> >>>>> Proposal: Request proposals for a scope parameter definition that improve >>>>> interop. Otherwise, keep the parameter out of the core spec. >>>>> >>>>> EHL >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> OAuth mailing list >>>>> OAuth@ietf.org >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> OAuth mailing list >>>> OAuth@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >>>> >>>> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > OAuth@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth > _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
