I’d probably add that for something like nextcloud granted scopes can be an „orthogonal”–for the lack of a better word–subset of requested scopes.

The set of requestable scopes has to be defined by the system itself, not its specific configuration. E.g. „files:manage”, „talk:manage”, „mail:read” are all general capabilities the system offers.

However, as a user I can have a local configuration that adds granularity to the grants I issue. E.g.: „files:manage in specific folders” or „mail:read for specific domains or groups only” are user trust statements that fit into the capability matrix but add an additional and preferably invisible layer of access control.

It’s a fairly rare feature in the wild and is a potential UX pitfall, but it can be useful as an advanced option on the grant page, or as a separate access control for issued grants.

https://oauth.net/articles/authentication/

That aside, why is nextcloud asking for scopes from remote API in the diagram? What is drawn on the diagram has little to do with OAuth scopes, but rather looks like an attempt to wrap ACL repository access into a new vocabulary.

Scopes issued by the OAuth authorization server can be hidden entirely. The issuer doesn’t hold any obligation to share them with authorized party since they are dedicated for internal use and can be propagated via invisible or opaque means.

I really can’t figure out what’s going on with that diagram.

Are you stupid or are you paid? „Let them have land” is literally the simplest most retarded solution, yet you dare use that descriptor against something else.

Ceding land to Russia doesn’t stop people from dying. Never did, never will do.

I get it, your sorry pathetic ass is tired of war that you’re not affected by. You’d rather sweep a few million lives under the rug and call it peace.

Well, your voice belongs under that very rug.

Following years of under-investment and despite increasing ticket prices, DB continues to make annual losses.

Ah, so nothing’s gonna change.

Russian allies also don’t give a fuck about red lines.

Whereas Ukraine’s allies were so unwilling to commit, that the war that could’ve been finished in the first year is increasingly likely to transition into EU invasion.

Would? They already do.

That’s a bit too humane for tankies. I’d rather expect „she’s a bitch and deserves to die” from the get go.

Taganrog, Kuban, Green and Yellow Klyns, Kursk…

If we start to enumerate, Russia has a lot of territories they’ve ethnically cleansed to call them „historically Russian territories”.