quot; , "Edward
Denson" , "John Adkins" , "John Teeter"
, "Lynne Rodoni"
, "Marty Burns" ,
, "Ray Perlner" , "Scott
Crowder" , "Uday Verma"
Date: 02/04/2013 01:56 PM
Subject:RE: [OAUTH-WG] draft-richer-oauth-int
Lainhart
Cc: IETF oauth WG
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] draft-richer-oauth-introspection-01 scope syntax
I got the same reading of the list as you, and I could go either way. I
believe we absolutely must pick one or the other though.
If anyone has thoughts on the matter one way or the other, pleas
ubject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] draft-richer-oauth-introspection-01 scope syntax
I should add that this is also a bit of an artifact of our implementation.
Internally, we parse and store scopes as collections of discrete strings and
process them that way. So serializa
/2013 05:34 PM
Subject:Re: [OAUTH-WG] draft-richer-oauth-introspection-01 scope
syntax
I should add that this is also a bit of an artifact of our implementation.
Internally, we parse and store scopes as collections of discrete strings
and process them that way. So serialization of that
Todd Lainhart
Rational software
IBM Corporation
550 King Street, Littleton, MA 01460-1250
1-978-899-4705
2-276-4705 (T/L)
lainh...@us.ibm.com
From: Justin Richer
To: Todd W Lainhart/Lexington/IBM@IBMUS,
Cc: IETF oauth WG
Date: 01/30/2013 05:29 PM
Subject: Re: [OAU
Hi Justin
On 30/01/13 22:29, Justin Richer wrote:
It's not meant to follow the same syntax. Instead, it's making use of
the JSON object structure to avoid additional parsing of the values on
the client side.
We could fairly easily define it as the same space-delimited string if
enough people wan
ail:<mailto:donald.cof...@reminetworks.com>
donald.cof...@reminetworks.com
From: Justin Richer [mailto:jric...@mitre.org]
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 2:29 PM
To: Todd W Lainhart
Cc: IETF oauth WG
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] draft-richer-oauth-introspection-01 scope syntax
It's not meant to f
] draft-richer-oauth-introspection-01 scope syntax
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Justin Richer
mailto:jric...@mitre.org>> wrote:
We could fairly easily define it as the same space-delimited string if enough
people want to keep the scope format consistent.
Can't we have our cake and
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Justin Richer wrote:
> We could fairly easily define it as the same space-delimited string if
> enough people want to keep the scope format consistent.
>
>
Can't we have our cake and eat it too, and accept either syntax? JSON
makes it pretty easy to introspect wh
I should add that this is also a bit of an artifact of our
implementation. Internally, we parse and store scopes as collections of
discrete strings and process them that way. So serialization of that
value naturally fell to a JSON list.
-- Justin
On 01/30/2013 05:29 PM, Justin Richer wrote:
Let JSON do the parsing for you
From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Justin Richer
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 2:29 PM
To: Todd W Lainhart
Cc: IETF oauth WG
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] draft-richer-oauth-introspection-01 scope syntax
It's not mea
It's not meant to follow the same syntax. Instead, it's making use of
the JSON object structure to avoid additional parsing of the values on
the client side.
We could fairly easily define it as the same space-delimited string if
enough people want to keep the scope format consistent.
-- Jus
That the scope syntax in draft-richer-oauth-introspection-01 is different
than RFC 6749 Section 3.3, as in:
"scope": ["read", "write", "dolphin"],
vs.
scope = scope-token *( SP scope-token )
scope-token = 1*( %x21 / %x23-5B / %x5D-7E )
Should introspection-01 follow the 6749 syntax
13 matches
Mail list logo
