On 4/2/2023 2:26 PM, Warren Parad wrote:
Sorry, I'm asking why these scopes at all? I personally have never
seen any of them used ever (and I'm not being hyperbolic), How did you
come up with these suggestions?
The naming seemed logical given the IANA URI namespace. I was looking
for something that would be a common set of scopes for this application
domain that wasn't tied to a single vendor.
The purpose *could* be served by widespread adoption of Google's scopes
such as
https://www.googleapis.com/auth/calendar
but I believe that the reliance on a specific vendor name would hamper
wide-spread adoption, so a namespace defined by a neutral party such as
IETF seemed best.
On Sun, Apr 2, 2023 at 8:46 PM Clinton Bunch <cdb_i...@zentaur.org> wrote:
On 4/2/2023 1:34 PM, Warren Parad wrote:
I propose a set of nine well-known scopes
Can you elaborate on what you mean by "well-known"? Is there some
canonical list, where these were pulled from?
I was trying to avoid the use of standard, as that implies they
must be used. To encourage adoption, I didn't want to imply that
the large providers would be required to change their software to
accommodate these, though it would be nice if they did. These
scopes are not currently in use as far as I know.
The sense of well-known is that once this was published they would
be well-known scopes that could be implemented with well-defined
semantics.
- Warren
On Sun, Apr 2, 2023 at 8:12 PM Clinton Bunch
<cdb_i...@zentaur.org> wrote:
This seemed the most appropriate working group to post this
suggestion.
I would like to see a new Internet-Draft/RFC to add some
well-known
scopes to the IANA registry to promote adoption of Oauth in
Groupware
domains. I will try to write it myself, but have no
experience with
I-Ds or as a technical writer and could use some help.
Since the publication of RFC 7628 there is a push to migrate
groupware
servers to use Oauth2. This is hampered by the fact that
there are
several different server implementations and client
implementations are
often written by different organizations with little
overlap. One of
the barriers to widespread adoption is that each
authorization server
has a different set of scopes to cover the necessary user
authorizations. One groupware client I know has only a few
Auth Servers
available that are hardcoded and nearly every one has a
different set of
scopes. Servers have to have appropriate scopes configured
by the
administrator in order for the server to know which scopes to
check. It
also makes it hard for clients to know which scopes to
request without
some sort of configuration file provided by the domain or
worse, having
the user enter the appropriate scopes by hand. The latter
especially
seems like a support headache for the admin of the groupware
servers.
I propose a set of nine well-known scopes be added to the
Oauth URI IANA
registry to address this.
urn:ietf:params:oauth:scope:mail:read - Authorization
to read
email (IMAP,POP)
urn:ietf:params:oauth:scope:mail:send - Authorization
to send
mail on the user's behalf (SMTP)
urn:ietf:params:oauth:scope:mail - Combination of the
previous two scopes
urn:ietf:params:oauth:scope:calendar:read -
Authorization to read
calendar entries
urn:ietf:params:oauth:scope:calendar:update -
Authorization to
update/create/delete calendar entries
urn:ietf:params:oauth:scope:calendar - Combination of the
previous two scopes
urn:ietf:params:oauth:scope:contacts:read -
Authorization to read
contacts information
urn:ietf:params:oauth:scope:contacts:update -
Authorization to
update/create/delete contact information.
urn:ietf:params:oauth:scope:contacts - Combination of the
previous two scopes
_______________________________________________
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
