Am 15.07.2010 20:14, schrieb Marius Scurtescu:
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 10:03 AM, Torsten Lodderstedt
<tors...@lodderstedt.net> wrote:
As I have written in my reply to Marius's posting. I'm fine with including
server ids in scopes. But this requires a definition of the scope's syntax
and semantics in the spec. Otherwise, scope interpretation (and server
identification) will be deployment specific.
Sure, it is deployment specific, but why is that an issue?
In your case, the authz server and all the resource servers are
managed by the same organization, right?
Do clients need to be aware of the actual resource server?
You can probably create a separate spec that defines scope syntax for
this purpose, if really needed. Does it have to be in core?
Marius
Solving the challenge I described in a deployment specific way is not an
issue. But the consequence is that authz server, resource servers and
clients are tight together.
Let me ask you one question: Why are we working together towards a
standard protocol? I can tell you my expectations: I hope there will be
broad support not only by libraries, but also by ready-to-use services
and clients, so we could integrate such services into our deployment
easily. Moreover, I would like to see OAuth to be included in
application/service protocols like PortableContacts, SIP, WebDAV, IMAP, ...
So what if I would like to use standard clients to access our services?
Using scopes for specifying resource server id's in this case is also
simple - if you take an isolated view. But since scopes may be used to
specifiy a lot of other things, like resources, permissions, and
durations, handling w/o a more detailed spec will in practice be impossible.
Suppose a WebDAV service for media data access. Any WebDAV client knows
the WebDAV protocol (== interface), e.g. the supported methods (GET,
PUT, POST, DELETE, COPY, MOVE) and how to traverse directories. So it is
sufficient to configure the client with the URL of my personal web
storage. To start with let's assume, scopes are used to designate
resource servers only. So the server's scope could be "webstorage".
WWW-Authenticate OAuth realm='webstorage' scope="webstorage"
The client could just pass this parameter to the authz server and
everything is fine.
On the next level, let's assume the (future) WebDAV standard with
OAuth-support uses one permission per method type. So the full scope
could be as follows:
WWW-Authenticate OAuth realm='webstorage' scope="webstorage:GET
webstorage:PUT webstorage:POST webstorage:DELETE webstorage:COPY
webstorage:MOVE"
Passing this scope w/o any unmodified to the authz server is not an
issue. But this implies the client asks for full access to the users
media storage. Since our client is a gallery application, it requires
the "GET" permission only. How does the client know which of the scope
values to pick for the end-user authorization process? It must somehow
select "webstorage:GET".
But how?
In my personal opinion, clients should be enabled to interpret, combine
and even create scopes. And yes, this should go to the core of the spec.
regards,
Torsten.
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
