Fwd: [oauth-extensions] Re: Proposal for OAuth extension: OpenFile

[Adam Rosien]

An interested thread from the oauth-extension mailing list:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Adam Rosien <adam....@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: [oauth-extensions] Re: Proposal for OAuth extension: OpenFile
To: oauth-ex...@googlegroups.com

> As for the actual proposal for OpenFile, I would like to ask how it is better/different than the existing proposal for negotiating rights (http://groups.google.com/group/oauth/msg/91cabf9061004d0a).

I think we have semantically similar proposals for specifying
requested Consumer rights. Syntactically they are different, but it's
not too important right now.

Adding a requested duration is a good idea from the previous proposal,
as is a mechanism to reject the request if it is not possible for the
Provider to fulfill. I like the ability to specify a count parameter
in OpenFile because it's useful for creating an appropriate interface
for the user (single- vs. multi-selection), but I would agree it's not
as general a parameter. My hope for OpenFile is that it can be an
additional vocabulary for file-specific rights requests.

The OpenFile idea is essentially the combination of:

OAuth/Core + OAuth/Rights (TBD) + OAuth/Discovery +
GrantedResources (represented as an Atom feed and an OAuth Protected
Resource)

It has been difficult to decide what form this idea should be in.
Currently the rights and granted resources "resource" are the new
elements and have been combined into the OpenFile spec, although I
recognize that these are orthogonal components. We've decided to put
all these elements together to attempt to provide a single spec that
someone could implement against to support the intended use cases. It
may be valid and important to separate the two, or not; your opinions
will help in this.

.. Adam

[Anton Bar (G.ho.st)]

Link to the oauth thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/oauth-extensions/browse_thread/thread/6ed7e749759b887e?hl=en