I'm sympathetic towards the problem - going back to my Zapier + Gmail example, having a one-click button from the RS (zapier) to manage the grant within the AS (google) seems like a very useful thing to have. That is to say - I do believe there would be adoption outside of the ATProto ecosystem.
Some questions: - Would we want to pass some standardized grant metadata (e.g. client_id_hint as a query param) back to the AS management UI so that the AS knows where the user is coming from and what grant they are interested in? - How would this field work with something like Cross App Access - where the grant isn't managed within the AS but within the workforce IDP used to log in to the AS? Out of scope? RP AS links back to Workforce IDP AS? On Mon, Nov 17, 2025 at 3:47 PM Nick Watson <nwatson= [email protected]> wrote: > I strongly support making authz server management pages more easily > discoverable by users, as it is a persistent problem. (How many of you have > visited https://myaccount.google.com/connections before? How did you find > it?) Putting it in authz server metadata seems like a good start for things > that can be easily specced out, but it will still be up to the client or RS > to expose it to users. > > I think it would be useful to have some non-normative recommendations for > *how* AS, RS, or clients should expose this URL to the users, e.g. on the > consent page for the AS. ("You're granting these permissions; here's how to > manage/remove them.") > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 8:36 AM Aaron Parecki <aaron= > [email protected]> wrote: > >> > Naïvely I look at this as similar to me putting a "Configure all your >> Google Allowed Applications" button in my app that lets users log in with >> Google, and I can't think of a reason why I would want to do that. >> >> "Log in with Google" isn't the right way to look at it, that's why you >> can't think of a reason you want to do it. A better example would be an app >> that accesses Google resources, but Google doesn't necessarily have to be >> the way the user logged in to the app. >> >> But the scenario described in this thread is closer to a first-party app >> anyway because the app _is_ the primary way the user accesses their >> resources at the API. >> >> The only real argument against adding this parameter would be that it >> isn't actually a generic OAuth problem, like trying to argue that it's >> actually an ATProto-specific concept. Another example of that would be a >> Wordpress app that you can point at an arbitrary Wordpress server already >> needs to know the Wordpress-specific API endpoints to manage content, so >> this could be treated as another Wordpress-specific endpoint. >> >> But clearly both of these scenarios would benefit from the same >> mechanism, and the OAuth grants _are_ part of OAuth, so it makes sense for >> it to be an authorization server metadata property. >> >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 17, 2025 at 3:23 PM Warren Parad <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I think it makes sense for us to fully understand a use case before just >>> diving in. If we can envision the problem holistically, then we can ensure >>> that we are designing a forward compatible protocol. It's always a mistake >>> to "throw one line in the metadata registry", if in the end it doesn't >>> actually solve the complete problem space. >>> >>> That being said, if we are confident that we understand the whole >>> problem, and most paths it could take in the future, then it does make >>> sense. But at least, I don't have the confidence to say personally, *"I >>> understand the whole problem"*. And from what little of the problem I >>> do understand, it doesn't make sense to me. This just tells me that I don't >>> understand it well enough like you do. >>> >>> Since you have a generic oauth client, would you be able to share more >>> about how that client works, and under which situations you might expect a >>> user to want to navigate to AS that you don't control? Naïvely I look at >>> this as similar to me putting a "Configure all your Google Allowed >>> Applications" button in my app that lets users log in with Google, and I >>> can't think of a reason why I would want to do that. That is "what's the >>> user story?" Would you be able to share the user story you are providing >>> support for, for the users of the implementers of your client? That would >>> be really helpful for me. >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 12:04 AM Michael Sweet <msweet= >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Warren, >>>> >>>> > On Nov 17, 2025, at 4:36 PM, Warren Parad <wparad= >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > For sure, it's just the connection from the client to the AS page, >>>> that is at least weird for me. >>>> > >>>> > Users absolutely want to find this page. I just don't think non-first >>>> party clients should be providing that way to make it happen though. Which >>>> brings me back to the problem of when would it ever get usage. If we think >>>> about all the clients of ATProto being first party apps though, then this >>>> makes a lot more sense. >>>> >>>> So as a "generic OAuth client" implementor (specifically for CUPS, but >>>> anyone can use the C API), I am 100% in favor of providing metadata that >>>> allows my client software to provide "first party" security >>>> capabilities/functionality for whatever OAuth provider they choose. I also >>>> don't think adding one line to the IANA metadata registry is a big deal, >>>> with or without people lining up to support it, but for the record I'd >>>> support it in CUPS. >>>> >>>> ________________________ >>>> Michael Sweet >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >> OAuth mailing list -- [email protected] >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >> > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
