Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Scope definition feedback (Yaron Goland)

From: Eran Hammer-Lahav <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 15:57:59 -0700

> 4.1.2.  Authorization Response: Comment "The language around scopes in

> the document is really frustrating. One only finds out much later in the

> document that it is perfectly allowable for an authorization server to more or

> less ignore what scopes are submitted and instead to just return whatever

> the hell they want. This is a fine design choice but it seems like the sort of

> thing that should be forcefully repeated anywhere in the spec that we allow

> people to submit scopes so nobody forgets."

Added new section and changed all duplicate definitions of 'scope' to reference it:

3.3.  Access Token Scope

   The authorization and token endpoints allow the client to specify the
   scope of the access request using the "scope" request parameter.  In
   turn, the authorization server uses the "scope" response parameter to
   inform the client of the scope of the access token issued.

   The value of the scope parameter is expressed as a list of space-
   delimited, case sensitive strings.  The strings are defined by the
   authorization server.  If the value contains multiple space-delimited
   strings, their order does not matter, and each string adds an
   additional access range to the requested scope.

   The authorization server MAY fully or partially ignore the scope
   requested by the client based on the authorization server policy or
   the resource owner's instructions.  If the issued access token scope
   is different from the one requested by the client, the authorization
   server SHOULD include the "scope" response parameter to inform the
   client of the actual scope granted.

EHL