Wups, there's a must in there that should be MUST.
________________________________
From: agks mehx <agksm...@gmail.com>
To: William Mills <wmi...@yahoo-inc.com>; Eran Hammer <e...@hueniverse.com>;
"oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 4:18 PM
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Seeking Clarification: Potential Ambiguity in
Specification
Sounds very good: "... MAY include or omit the scope parameter. If omitted, the
server must process the request using an empty scope as the default."
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 4:02 PM, William Mills <wmi...@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
On your #1, I don't agree that an empty scope is useless. There are comparable
implementations that use an empty scope to be a wildcard scope. I'd say,
>
>
>
>"The client can MAY include or omit the scope
parameter. If omitted, the server must process the request using an empty scope
as the default. The server then processes the request either issuing a grant
with it's default scope as defined by the server or failing the request
indicating an invalid scope requested."
>
>
>That language isn't quite right, but I think it's clear.
>
>
>
>
>________________________________
> From: Eran Hammer <e...@hueniverse.com>
>To: "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>
>Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 1:15 PM
>
>Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Seeking Clarification: Potential Ambiguity in
>Specification
>
>
>I don't think the issue here is about the scope value, but who does the
>OPTIONAL designation applies to. IOW, is it optional for the server to
>support/require it, or is it optional for the client to include or omit it.
>
>The intention was to make it optional for the authorization server to make all
>decisions about the parameter, including making it required. But the text is
>confusing since the text is aimed directly at the client when making the
>request.
>
>We need to clarify this and the options are:
>
>1. The client can decide if they want to include or omit the scope parameter.
>If omitted, the server must process the request using some documented default
>scope. This default scope can be an empty scope rendering the token useless
>for anything other than verifying user authentication.
>
>2. The server can declare scope to be a required parameter in which case the
>client must include it or the request will fail. In this case, we should
make the text clearer that clients to find out if the particular server
requires it.
>
>#1 is better for interoperability, #2 is more in the spirit of the parameter
>discussions so far.
>
>EHL
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
>> Of Phil Hunt
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 11:33 AM
>> To: SM
>> Cc: oauth@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Seeking Clarification: Potential Ambiguity in
>> Specification
>>
>> The underlying issue is that there was a decision not to in any way
>> standardize values for scope.
>>
>> I agreed this was reasonable since the underlying resource
APIs are likely to
>> be very specific requiring some degree of prior knowledge by the client app
>> developer. Thus the resource server OAuth infrastructure is free to decide
>> what are and are not acceptable values including missing or null values for
>> scope.
>>
>> I think the specification is acceptable as it is.
>>
>> I note that other specifications that layer on top of OAuth2 such as OpenID
>> Connect may choose to strictly define acceptable values for scope. This type
>> of layering works well in my opinion.
>>
>> Phil
>>
>> @independentid
>> www.independentid.com
>> phil.h...@oracle.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2012-01-10, at 10:56 AM, SM wrote:
>>
>> > At 09:19 10-01-2012,
William Mills wrote:
>> >> That does clear it up! If the implementation returns a proper error when
>> the scope is omitted then it will be in conformance. Sending an error result
>> for the empty scope is valid.
>> >
>> > Yes.
>> >
>> > It is not possible to get a clear view of the specs if the discussion about
>> "ambiguity" relies on the meaning of the word "OPTIONAL" only. If there is a
>> problem, then clarifying text could be used to fix it instead of changing the
>> requirements.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > -sm
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > OAuth mailing list
>> > OAuth@ietf.org
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>
>>
_______________________________________________
>> OAuth mailing list
>> OAuth@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>_______________________________________________
>OAuth mailing list
>OAuth@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>OAuth mailing list
>OAuth@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>
>
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
