Re: [OAUTH-WG] Manual Authorization Codes -- Help/Feedback requested

[Justin Richer <[e-mail]>]

What you're describing is the Device Flow, which was pulled out of the 
main document a while ago and now sits here, somewhat outdated and unloved:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-recordon-oauth-v2-device-00

In this, the app gives the user a short code that they enter into a URL, 
do the authorization there, and get a short code back. It's effectively 
the same as the auth code flow, but it does the dance without HTTP 
redirects.

  -- Justin

On 01/10/2012 02:23 PM, Gregory Prisament wrote:
> Hello,
> I am developing a REST API and trying to follow the OAuth 2.0 protocol
> for authentication, and have a few questions for you good folks.
>
> The use case I'm interested in is native applications (such as linux
> command-line programs) that are unable or unwilling to involve a
> user-agent.  In this case, it seems redirection-based flows
> ("Authorization Code" and "Implicit Grant Types") are out!  That
> leaves "Client Credentials" and "Resource Owner Credentials".
>
> "Client Credentials" do not seem appropriate because the client may be
> installed on multiple machines and used by different resource owners.
>
> "Resource Owner Credentials" COULD work, but I'd rather not require
> the resource owner to reveal their username and password.
>
> One solution, which seems reasonable to me, would be to extend OAuth2
> to include another grant type called "Manual Authorization Code".
> Using a web browser, the resource owner would login&  authenticate
> with the authorization server (using session log-on, etc).  From there
> they could enter an Application ID and press a button "Generate Manual
> Authorization Code".  The resource owner would then type this Manual
> Authorization Code into the client, and the client could exchange it
> for an Access Token.
>
> But before I go down this route -- writing an extension, etc.. -- I
> wanted the WG's feedback.  It seems there are a few different ways to
> handle this use case and was curious which you think best matches the
> intentions of the OAuth2 spec.
>
> POSSIBLE APPROACHES:
> (1) "Manual Authorization Code" extension.
> See description above.
>
> (2) "Client Credentials" with each resource owner registering a separate client.
> We could achieve a similar effect to (1) by using "Client
> Credentials".  Say the client is a command-line program
> "example-client-cli", which a large number of resource owners have
> downloaded and installed.  Each resource owner would register the
> client with the authorization server and configure their local install
> by telling it the client_id and client_secret.
>
> (3) Something else entirely?
>
> QUESTIONS FOR YOUR:
> (Q1) Has the WG thought about this particular use case ("CLI clients")
> and do you have a recommended authorization approach.
> (Q2) Do Manual Authorization Codes make sense?  Would anyone else find
> it useful to have - if I were to write up an extension document for
> it?
>
>
> Thanks in advanced for you help!
> Cheers,
> Greg Prisament
> Software Architect
> PowerCloud Systems
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth