[OAUTH-WG] Scope :: Was: Extensibility for OAuth?

2010-06-23 Thread Dick Hardt
On 2010-06-22, at 11:07 PM, Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) wrote: > " > scope > OPTIONAL. The scope of the access request expressed as a list > of space-delimited strings. The value of the "scope" parameter > is defined by the authorization server. If the value c

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Scope :: Was: Extensibility for OAuth?

2010-06-24 Thread Lukas Rosenstock
Wasn't there some concensus that URIs would be good for scope? They have "in-built namespacing" ... Lukas 2010/6/23 Dick Hardt : > > On 2010-06-22, at 11:07 PM, Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) wrote: > >> " >>   scope >>         OPTIONAL.  The scope of the access request expressed as a list >

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Scope :: Was: Extensibility for OAuth?

2010-06-24 Thread Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)
iao Hannes > -Original Message- > From: ext Lukas Rosenstock [mailto:l...@lukasrosenstock.net] > Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 10:49 AM > To: Dick Hardt > Cc: Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo); OAuth WG > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Scope :: Was: Extensibility for OAuth? >

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Scope :: Was: Extensibility for OAuth?

2010-06-24 Thread Justin Richer
I recall there being consensus on the space delimiter to make it so that URIs could be used easily as scope parameters. I know that I, personally, would rather have keywords in our implementation than URIs, so I'm very much in favor of keeping it unspecified. -- justin On Thu, 2010-06-24 at 03:4

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Scope :: Was: Extensibility for OAuth?

2010-06-24 Thread Dick Hardt
iginal Message- >> From: ext Lukas Rosenstock [mailto:l...@lukasrosenstock.net] >> Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 10:49 AM >> To: Dick Hardt >> Cc: Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo); OAuth WG >> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Scope :: Was: Extensibility for OAuth? >>

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Scope :: Was: Extensibility for OAuth?

2010-06-24 Thread William Mills
etf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] > On Behalf Of Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) > Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 3:58 AM > To: ext Lukas Rosenstock; Dick Hardt > Cc: OAuth WG > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Scope :: Was: Extensibility for OAuth? > > The questio

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Scope :: Was: Extensibility for OAuth?

2010-06-25 Thread Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)
To: Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo); ext Lukas > Rosenstock; Dick Hardt > Cc: OAuth WG > Subject: RE: [OAUTH-WG] Scope :: Was: Extensibility for OAuth? > > I'm in favor of having a spaces separated list of tokens. > The only case I can think of where the client needs to han

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Scope :: Was: Extensibility for OAuth?

2010-06-25 Thread Justin Richer
in other cases, such as "std:". > > Ciao > Hannes > > > > -Original Message- > > From: ext William Mills [mailto:wmi...@yahoo-inc.com] > > Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 8:15 PM > > To: Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo); ext Lukas >

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Scope :: Was: Extensibility for OAuth?

2010-06-25 Thread Blaine Cook
> > Ciao > Hannes > > >> -Original Message- >> From: ext William Mills [mailto:wmi...@yahoo-inc.com] >> Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 8:15 PM >> To: Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo); ext Lukas >> Rosenstock; Dick Hardt >> Cc: OAuth WG >

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Scope :: Was: Extensibility for OAuth?

2010-06-25 Thread Dick Hardt
hat are > not allowed to be used in other cases, such as "std:". > > Ciao > Hannes > > >> -Original Message- >> From: ext William Mills [mailto:wmi...@yahoo-inc.com] >> Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 8:15 PM >> To: Tschofenig, Hannes

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Scope :: Was: Extensibility for OAuth?

2010-06-25 Thread Dick Hardt
t;> there would still be the need to decide about the structure of the values >> now. One possibility is to just add a prefix for standardized values that >> are not allowed to be used in other cases, such as "std:". >> >> Ciao >> Hannes >> >>

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Scope :: Was: Extensibility for OAuth?

2010-06-25 Thread Luke Shepard
would be "https://graph.facebook.com";. >>> >>> To respond to the statement Dick made about having standardized values >>> later there would still be the need to decide about the structure of the >>> values now. One possibility is to just add a pref

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Scope :: Was: Extensibility for OAuth?

2010-06-25 Thread Eran Hammer-Lahav
> Cc: OAuth WG > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Scope :: Was: Extensibility for OAuth? > > I agree with Dick that the scope should remain out of scope for OAuth. > ;-) Having a shared parameter here gives the illusion of interoperability, but > because there's no common understa

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Scope :: Was: Extensibility for OAuth?

2010-06-25 Thread Eran Hammer-Lahav
f Dick Hardt > Sent: Friday, June 25, 2010 8:50 AM > To: Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) > Cc: OAuth WG > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Scope :: Was: Extensibility for OAuth? > > To clarify, the goal is to reserve a namespace for future use so that near > term > imple

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Scope :: Was: Extensibility for OAuth?

2010-06-25 Thread Dick Hardt
ck Hardt >> Sent: Friday, June 25, 2010 8:50 AM >> To: Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) >> Cc: OAuth WG >> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Scope :: Was: Extensibility for OAuth? >> >> To clarify, the goal is to reserve a namespace for future use so that near >&g

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Scope :: Was: Extensibility for OAuth?

2010-06-25 Thread Eran Hammer-Lahav
That's coming in -09. EHL > -Original Message- > From: Dick Hardt [mailto:dick.ha...@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, June 25, 2010 11:19 AM > To: Eran Hammer-Lahav > Cc: Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo); OAuth WG > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Scope :: Was: Extensibility

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Scope :: Was: Extensibility for OAuth?

2010-06-25 Thread Justin Hart
th-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf >> Of Dick Hardt >> Sent: Friday, June 25, 2010 8:50 AM >> To: Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) >> Cc: OAuth WG >> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Scope :: Was: Extensibility for OAuth? >> >> To clar