search

salesforce-marketingcloud / SFDC-MC-REST-Style-Guide

REST style guidelines
31 stars 9 forks source link

API paths MUST specify a tag matching a "scope" for authenication #19

Open aroden-salesforce opened 9 years ago

aroden-salesforce commented 9 years ago

To support oauth scoping effectively routes must provide an indication of the scopes the provide/belong to.

The scopes of these routes will be enforced at a framework level by the granted scope of authentication.

jfitzgeraldSF commented 9 years ago

Or should they be enforced at the API management level (i.e. layer7)?

aroden-salesforce commented 9 years ago

Yes, it should be enforced at the API management level (my bad). This is a use cases where scopes do not map1to1 with a path hierarchy.

This bug is to think about how the API can opt-in parts within specific authorization scopes.

Specifically I'm concerned around use cases exposed in AppCenter. When a user installs an app we'd like that app to have limited access against the user's account. Further, it should be a meaningful access levels shown the user in a clear request for permission fashion. Of course, the same thing applies the other way, meaningful categories for app developers to opt-into.

sprshrp commented 9 years ago

@aroden-salesforce I do not believe this is a requirement for 4.0, but please correct me if i'm wrong.

dougwilson commented 9 years ago

This is actually for the discovery document, where ever that lives (I don't think I see it here, so I don't think it directly applies to this repo).

aroden-salesforce commented 9 years ago

The "discovery" document should live here but isn't linked to and emphasized enough :(

On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Douglas Christopher Wilson < notifications@github.com> wrote:

This is actually for the discovery document, where ever that lives (I don't think I see it here, so I don't think it directly applies to this repo).

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/salesforcefuel/SFMC-Fuel-Style-Guide/issues/19#issuecomment-109644400 .