I am the author of OKAP, intially I wanted to extend oauth but then decided to keep it independent and see how it goes.
Few in the public domain were pro RFC… Adaption is the greatest challenge. -- Thank you, Hemanth.HM <http://www.h3manth.com> On Fri, Dec 26, 2025 at 2:55 AM Warren Parad <[email protected]> wrote: > Okap is not a standard, it isn't even a secure protocol. It is just a > pattern/architecture which intentionally avoids using oauth2 because oauth2 > requires the apps to support it, and of course getting those providers to > support oauth2 is non trivial. > > It wound be nice if the providers supported oauth2, but they don't really > care about security. If they did take that perspective, and there was > something getting in the way of them support oauth, that would be good to > find out. > > On Fri, Dec 26, 2025, 10:28 Hemanth H.M <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Maybe off topic, but https://okap.dev sounds ok? >> >> -- >> Thank you, >> Hemanth.HM <http://www.h3manth.com> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Dec 25, 2025 at 10:55 PM Warren Parad <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> 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]
