Re: [OAUTH-WG] The meaning of scope

2010-07-09 Thread Diogo Almeida
[eventually a wrong one], as it limits the use of scope in our implementation to the permissions. For instance, we, for now, left out the "duration scopes" suggested by Eran in his previous email. It would be very valuable for us to have more explicit texts regarding the use of scopes.

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Questions regarding -09 section 3.1

2010-07-06 Thread Diogo Almeida
Thanks Eran, Best regards, Diogo Almeida On Jul 6, 2010, at 3:03 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote: > > > > > On Jul 3, 2010, at 7:50, Diogo Almeida wrote: > >> Good afternoon, >> >> I would like to ask the WG two questions regarding -09 >> &g

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Authorization Response "scope" parameter

2010-07-06 Thread Diogo Almeida
Hello David, Just a small note: if such change was made I believe it would also have to be reflected on section 4.2 (draft 09), in order to have a coherent scope parameter. Best regards, Diogo Almeida On Jul 5, 2010, at 5:46 PM, David Recordon wrote: > Seems like adding, "It'

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Questions regarding -09 section 3.1

2010-07-06 Thread Diogo Almeida
regarding the code parameter". Best regards, Diogo Almeida On Jul 3, 2010, at 12:50 PM, Diogo Almeida wrote: > Good afternoon, > > I would like to ask the WG two questions regarding -09 > > 1) > On section 3.1, regarding the scope parameter, it reads: > > code > R

[OAUTH-WG] Possible "typos" in -09, section 2.1 examples

2010-07-03 Thread Diogo Almeida
Hello, Both examples in section 2.1 mention a "type" parameter, which, if I'm interpreting the changes correctly, has been removed in -07. Assuming it's indeed a typo. Where it reads: For example (line breaks are for display purposes only): POST /token HTTP/1.1 Host: server.exampl

[OAUTH-WG] Questions regarding -09 section 3.1

2010-07-03 Thread Diogo Almeida
en", "expires_in", "scope" and "state". Question: Would it make sense to also include an OPTIONAL "refresh_token" to make this response more in line with section 4.2. Access Token Response. Or the intention behind the decision of not

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Authorization Response "scope" parameter

2010-07-02 Thread Diogo Almeida
guity from the messages / flow without any significant overhead Best regards, Diogo Almeida On Jul 2, 2010, at 5:02 PM, Marius Scurtescu wrote: > If the scopes granted by the authz server are exactly the ones > requested by the client then I don't see the need for the authz server &

[OAUTH-WG] Authorization Response "scope" parameter

2010-07-02 Thread Diogo Almeida
;scope" parameter to the values to which the token grants access. Furthermore, the authorization server can add any other values deemed necessary to determine response scope. Best regards, Diogo Almeida ___ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth