I want to stop these emails

On Fri, Dec 26, 2025, 3:59 PM <[email protected]> wrote:

> Send OAuth mailing list submissions to
>         [email protected]
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via email, send a message with subject or
> body 'help' to
>         [email protected]
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         [email protected]
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of OAuth digest..."
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: [New I-D] draft-hemanth-oauth-ai-scopes-00 - OAuth 2.0 Extension
> for AI Model Access
>       (Warren Parad)
>    2. Re: [New I-D] draft-hemanth-oauth-ai-scopes-00 - OAuth 2.0 Extension
> for AI Model Access
>       (Hemanth H.M)
>    3. Re: [New I-D] draft-hemanth-oauth-ai-scopes-00 - OAuth 2.0 Extension
> for AI Model Access
>       (Hemanth H.M)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2025 06:55:31 +0000
> From: Warren Parad <[email protected]>
> Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Re: [New I-D] draft-hemanth-oauth-ai-scopes-00 -
>         OAuth 2.0 Extension for AI Model Access
> To: "Hemanth H.M" <[email protected]>
> Cc: oauth <[email protected]>
> Message-ID:
>         <CAJot-L001m_FAJt06dLyKXgNDvVS7=_AHqUS+M1J9So+MYsi=
> [email protected]>
> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>         boundary="000000000000a513c00646d56152"
>
> 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]
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> A message part incompatible with plain text digests has been removed ...
> Name: not available
> Type: text/html
> Size: 4562 bytes
> Desc: not available
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2025 02:28:21 -0800
> From: "Hemanth H.M" <[email protected]>
> Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Re: [New I-D] draft-hemanth-oauth-ai-scopes-00 -
>         OAuth 2.0 Extension for AI Model Access
> To: Warren Parad <[email protected]>
> Cc: oauth <[email protected]>
> Message-ID:
>         <CAFfGx61g35o1aCYDe==XAN5H2a7wv0Oq7oG69U=x=
> [email protected]>
> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>         boundary="000000000000f54c820646d85acb"
>
> 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]
> >>
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> A message part incompatible with plain text digests has been removed ...
> Name: not available
> Type: text/html
> Size: 5759 bytes
> Desc: not available
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2025 02:28:26 -0800
> From: "Hemanth H.M" <[email protected]>
> Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Re: [New I-D] draft-hemanth-oauth-ai-scopes-00 -
>         OAuth 2.0 Extension for AI Model Access
> To: Warren Parad <[email protected]>
> Cc: oauth <[email protected]>
> Message-ID:
>         <
> caffgx626qrq7akp9jv-pvcjdmedcbzih8ehgtqff1mmg-3l...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>         boundary="000000000000356acb0646d85bb0"
>
> 👍
>
> Hemanth reacted via Gmail
> <
> https://www.google.com/gmail/about/?utm_source=gmail-in-product&utm_medium=et&utm_campaign=emojireactionemail#app
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> A message part incompatible with plain text digests has been removed ...
> Name: not available
> Type: text/vnd.google.email-reaction+json
> Size: 37 bytes
> Desc: not available
> -------------- next part --------------
> A message part incompatible with plain text digests has been removed ...
> Name: not available
> Type: text/html
> Size: 283 bytes
> Desc: not available
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list -- [email protected]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of OAuth Digest, Vol 206, Issue 62
> **************************************
>
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to