Re: [OAUTH-WG] Change grant_type="none" to something less confusing

I agree that grant_type=none is confusing. "client" or "direct" sound better.

Marius

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Justin Richer <jricher@mitre.org> wrote:
> The choice of the value "none" for the grant_type parameter in the
> client-credentials case is confusing. I understand the philosophy behind
> this choice, but I think that calling it "none" here gives the wrong
> impression. It almost sounds like it's a deny-request on first glance,
> or even a revoke request of some type. Furthermore, I'd say that there
> really is an access grant being made here, but it's implicit, and given
> to the client directly and not to an end user.
>
> I propose we change this key to "client", "implicit", "direct", or
> something other than "none" to avoid this kind of confusion. Along with
> this, I would also like the paragraph in 4.1 describing the usage of
> this grant type to be pulled into its own (admittedly short) subsection.
> In this way, someone looking to implement this style of auth will have
> somewhere concrete to look, bringing this method on par with others in
> section 4.1.
>
>  -- Justin
>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>