Re: [OAUTH-WG] Native Client Extension

[Marius Scurtescu <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 3:00 AM, Skylar Woodward <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Marius,
>
> I support the extension (as per my previous letter, as I missed this thread over the holidays) and Kiva is/was planning to support this as well.  Given the unpredictable technology environments of many of our customers, this flow is essential for our implementation.
>
> However, now reviewing language in draft-12, I wonder if it isn't more clear to define the extension as using a different response_type (eg, oob_code).  In the past, the use of "oob" has been more of hack to work with existing specs. In truth, it is a unique flow of its own compared to Implict and Auth Code as they are currently defined.  Such a flow would not accept a redirect_url and could use "oob_code" for both response_type and grant_type.

I still think that "oob" applies only to the mechanism to return a
result, and not to the whole flow. Theoretically redirect_uri=oob
should work with both response_type=code and response_type=token, but
I had in mind only code.

Also, I don't see a reason to do anything special with the grant_type,
once the client has an authorization code it is all the same.

Marius