How about review the proposals? EHL
From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Chasen Le Hara Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 1:23 PM To: Eve Maler Cc: jsm...@stanfordalumni.org; OAuth WG Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] 'Scope' parameter proposal Hi all, On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 6:05 PM, Eve Maler <e...@xmlgrrl.com<mailto:e...@xmlgrrl.com>> wrote: It seems like this proposal "goes there" in terms of getting as expressive as Eran fears, though the addition of the wildcard takes away a good deal of the pain depending on the particular interface at the endpoint(s). Is there any wider interest in "going there"? Yes. A couple months ago Iron Money implemented a permissions system[1] that includes read_permissions and write_permissions as parameters when getting a request token. Those two parameters take a comma-separated list of pre-defined resource values (such as "write_permissions=accounts" for read and write permissions for the /accounts/ resource). If what is specified by OAuth 2.0 doesn’t meet Iron Money’s needs, that’s fine, but I wanted to raise my hand high as one of the people interested in a high level of expressiveness. -Chasen [1] https://ironmoney.com/api/permissions/
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
