+1 to Thorstens statement. There are use cases beyond local deployments. Best regards
Wolfgang -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] Im Auftrag von Torsten Lodderstedt Gesendet: Freitag, 16. Juli 2010 00:49 An: Marius Scurtescu Cc: OAuth WG Betreff: Re: [OAUTH-WG] resource server id needed? 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 _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
