> Is it important for an Authorization Server to be able to protect multiple 
> resources?

 

YES

 

>  If so, how should the client specify which resource it intends to access (it 
> seems like that is required)?

 

By redirecting the user to an authz URI that represents the intended resource.

 

If the client is interoperating with a resource it has no special knowledge 
about, then it can learn the authz URI from the 401 WWW-Auth.: OAUTH header it 
received when trying to access the resource directly. The server returning this 
header knows what resource the client asked for so the server can encode that 
information into the returned authz URI in whatever way it has prearranged with 
its AS.

 

 

--

James Manger

 

 

From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of 
Manger, James H
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 6:40 PM
To: OAuth WG
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter

 

> I don’t see how the presence of a scope parameter hurts interoperability.

 

Scopes so far have all been specific to a specific service. Knowing how Google 
uses ‘scope’ tells you nothing about interoperating with Microsoft.

 

Requesting access to specific sets of resources is important. However, you can 
do it by providing different user-authorization URIs — even if the URIs only 
differ in the value of a ‘scope’ query parameter.

 

For a library that isn’t service-specific, a scope value offers no semantic 
value. All the library can do is tack it onto a supplied user authz URI. In 
which case it is simpler for the library to just accept a user authz URI that 
has had the scope tacked on before being passed to the library.

 

 

-- 

James Manger

 

From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of 
Justin Smith
Sent: Friday, 16 April 2010 9:39 AM
To: Eran Hammer-Lahav; Marius Scurtescu; record...@gmail.com
Cc: OAuth WG
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter

 

I don’t see how the presence of a scope parameter hurts interoperability.

 

It think scope needs to be a 1st class citizen in the spec, not an extension. 
Without it, a client cannot request access to a specific set of resources 
(whether its represented as a string, URI, or anything else). Does the group 
think it Is important for an Authorization Server to be able to make auth 
decisions based on requested resources?

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

Reply via email to