Authorization to specific models doesn't need to live inside the the oauth2 generated JWT. OAuth is not the appropriate place for that.
On Thu, Dec 25, 2025, 21:36 Hemanth H.M <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey Warren, > > Good question. Current OAuth doesn't have a standard way to scope access > *to specific models* or attach usage limits (spend/rate) directly to the > token metadata without heavy custom extensions, right? This ID tries to > standardize that delegation layer. > > Justin, We can leverage RAR type for this? > > > -- > Thank you, > Hemanth.HM <http://www.h3manth.com> > > > > On Thu, Dec 25, 2025 at 1:31 PM Justin Richer <[email protected]> wrote: > >> It is an extremely terrible idea to create a structure for scopes. I've >> done this several times in different ecosystems and it always starts out ok >> but falls apart quickly. Do not repeat this mistake. >> >> If you need structure for access, define a RAR type, that's what it's >> there for. >> >> - Justin >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* Hemanth H.M <[email protected]> >> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 24, 2025 4:41 PM >> *To:* [email protected] <[email protected]> >> *Subject:* [OAUTH-WG] [New I-D] draft-hemanth-oauth-ai-scopes-00 - OAuth >> 2.0 Extension for AI Model Access >> >> Hi OAuth WG, >> >> I've submitted a new Internet-Draft for your consideration: >> >> draft-hemanth-oauth-ai-scopes-00 - OAuth 2.0 Extension for AI Model Access >> >> Problem: AI model APIs (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, etc.) require API key >> delegation, but current practices involve sharing master keys directly with >> third-party applications—no scoping, no revocation, no usage limits. >> >> Proposal: Extend OAuth 2.0 with: >> >> >> 1. Standard scope syntax: ai:<provider>:<model>:<capability> >> 2. Token metadata for spend/rate limits >> 3. Token introspection extensions for usage tracking >> 4. Security considerations (DPoP/mTLS for high-security deployments) >> >> >> GitHub: https://github.com/hemanth/oauth-ai-scopes >> >> I'd welcome feedback on the scope syntax, alignment with existing OAuth >> extensions (RFC 8707, RFC 9449), and whether this is something the WG would >> consider adopting. >> >> P.S: I also started https://okap.dev as a separate protocol, in case... >> >> -- >> Thank you, >> Hemanth.HM <http://www.h3manth.com> >> >> _______________________________________________ > 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]
