Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] draft-richer-oauth-introspection-01 scope syntax

From: Todd W Lainhart <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 10:06:50 -0500

Has there been any thinking or movement as to whether the scopes syntax 
stands as is, or aligns with 6749?  Of the folks who chose to respond, it 
seemed like the position was split.

From:   Justin Richer <[email-masked]>
To:     Todd W Lainhart/Lexington/IBM@IBMUS, 
Cc:     IETF oauth WG <[email-masked]>
Date:   01/30/2013 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 value naturally fell 
to a JSON list.

 -- Justin

On 01/30/2013 05:29 PM, 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 want to keep the scope format consistent.

 -- Justin

On 01/30/2013 05:27 PM, Todd W Lainhart wrote:
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 for scopes?

_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

---

From: "Richer, Justin P." <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 16:23:31 +0000

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, please speak up. The options are:

1) scopes are returned as a JSON array (current introspection text)
2) scopes are returned as a space-separated string (rfc6749 format for the "scope" parameter)

 -- Justin

On Feb 4, 2013, at 10:06 AM, Todd W Lainhart <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
 wrote:

Has there been any thinking or movement as to whether the scopes syntax stands as is, or aligns with 6749?  Of the folks who chose to respond, it seemed like the position was split.

From:        Justin Richer <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
To:        Todd W Lainhart/Lexington/IBM@IBMUS,
Cc:        IETF oauth WG <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Date:        01/30/2013 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 value naturally fell to a JSON list.

-- Justin

On 01/30/2013 05:29 PM, 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 want to keep the scope format consistent.

-- Justin

On 01/30/2013 05:27 PM, Todd W Lainhart wrote:
That the scope syntax in draft-richer-oauth-introspection-01 is different than RFC 6749 Section 3.3, as in:

vs.

_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

---

From: "Donald F Coffin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 10:54:57 -0800

Justin,

I am involved with the OpenESPI and OpenADE Task Force within the Smart Grid
Interoperability Panel (SGIP) which was established to engage stakeholders
from the Smart Grid Community in a participatory public process to identify
applicable standards, gaps in currently available standards, and priorities
for new standardization activities for the evolving Smart Grid. The SGIP
supports the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in
fulfilling its responsibilities under the 2007 Energy Independence and
Security Act.  My particular function is to chair the OpenESPI OAuth
sub-committee which is chartered with the integration of the OAuth 2.0
Protocol and the ESPI Standard.

Since OAuth 2.0 (RFC6749) has already established "scope" is a
space-separated string, it will be very confusing to implementers to no
define "scope" as a JSON array.  While a JSON array may be what the current
space-separated string is converted into when the application is written
using Java or one of its variants, there are other programming languages
that implementers may select to use.  Having to deal with two methods of
handling a "scope" response will require additional logic and merely
complicate the coding task.

Additional OAuth 2.0 specifications should not redefine data elements that
are already defined by RFC6749. Implementers should be able to rely on data
element definitions within RFC6749 being persistent throughout the OAuth
protocol framework.  If the OAuth introspective WG feels "scope" should be a
JSON array, then the WG should define a new data element rather than
changing the definition of an existing data element already defined by
RFC6749.

Best regards,

Don

Donald F. Coffin

Founder/CTO

REMI Networks

22751 El Prado Suite 6216

Rancho Santa Margarita, CA  92688-3836

Phone:      (949) 636-8571

Email:        <mailto:[email-masked]>
[email-masked]

From: Richer, Justin P. [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2013 8:24 AM
To: Todd W 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, please speak up.
The options are:

2) scopes are returned as a space-separated string (rfc6749 format for the
"scope" parameter)

 -- Justin

On Feb 4, 2013, at 10:06 AM, Todd W Lainhart <[email-masked]>

 wrote:

  _____  

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

-- Justin

vs. 

_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
 <mailto:[email-masked]> [email-masked]
 <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
 <mailto:[email-masked]> [email-masked]
 <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

---

From: Todd W Lainhart <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 14:03:36 -0500

If we're tallying votes, I'll re-state my position that I'm also in favor 
of using the scope syntax definition per 6749 - otherwise it is confusing 
when writing guidance documentation. 

If supporting JSON array syntax is important for this response value, 
Don's suggestion of introducing a new response parameter seems a good 
compromise.

From:   "Donald F Coffin" <[email-masked]>
To:     "'Richer, Justin P.'" <[email-masked]>, Todd W 
Lainhart/Lexington/IBM@IBMUS, 
Cc:     "'IETF oauth WG'" <[email-masked]>, "Anne Hendry" 
<[email-masked]>, "Dave Robin" <[email-masked]>, "Edward 
Denson" <[email-masked]>, "John Adkins" <[email-masked]>, "John Teeter" 
<[email-masked]>, "Lynne Rodoni" 
<[email-masked]>, "Marty Burns" <[email-masked]>, 
<[email-masked]>, "Ray Perlner" <[email-masked]>, "Scott 
Crowder" <[email-masked]>, "Uday Verma" 
<[email-masked]>
Date:   02/04/2013 01:56 PM
Subject:        RE: [OAUTH-WG] draft-richer-oauth-introspection-01 scope 
syntax

Justin,
 
I am involved with the OpenESPI and OpenADE Task Force within the Smart 
Grid Interoperability Panel (SGIP) which was established to engage 
stakeholders from the Smart Grid Community in a participatory public 
process to identify applicable standards, gaps in currently available 
standards, and priorities for new standardization activities for the 
evolving Smart Grid. The SGIP supports the National Institute of Standards 
and Technology (NIST) in fulfilling its responsibilities under the 2007 
Energy Independence and Security Act.  My particular function is to chair 
the OpenESPI OAuth sub-committee which is chartered with the integration 
of the OAuth 2.0 Protocol and the ESPI Standard.
 
Since OAuth 2.0 (RFC6749) has already established “scope” is a 
space-separated string, it will be very confusing to implementers to no 
define “scope” as a JSON array.  While a JSON array may be what the 
current space-separated string is converted into when the application is 
written using Java or one of its variants, there are other programming 
languages that implementers may select to use.  Having to deal with two 
methods of handling a “scope” response will require additional logic and 
merely complicate the coding task.
 
Additional OAuth 2.0 specifications should not redefine data elements that 
are already defined by RFC6749. Implementers should be able to rely on 
data element definitions within RFC6749 being persistent throughout the 
OAuth protocol framework.  If the OAuth introspective WG feels “scope” 
should be a JSON array, then the WG should define a new data element 
rather than changing the definition of an existing data element already 
defined by RFC6749.
 
Best regards,
Don
Donald F. Coffin
Founder/CTO
 
REMI Networks
 
Phone:      (949) 636-8571
Email:       [email-masked]

 
If anyone has thoughts on the matter one way or the other, please speak 
up. The options are:

 -- Justin

-- Justin

-- Justin

vs.