Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth2 and clients without browsers
Andrew Arnott <andrewarnott@gmail.com> Tue, 26 July 2011 16:18 UTC
Return-Path: <andrewarnott@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CF9721F8BCB for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 09:18:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ng2iw9+pgsXc for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 09:18:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qy0-f172.google.com (mail-qy0-f172.google.com [209.85.216.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35E6621F8BCD for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 09:18:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qyk9 with SMTP id 9so1790112qyk.10 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 09:18:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=tSdZJdlH5bLVOpvnC/d+PacVLJgFYW0jBeKXW2XnXNo=; b=ce2P6TfBBgzPkB0Kdf3bW+pbQgmtaIVBikOje1yhehh79yXzKoyupThXTkiVRUPs1p E6Q/9dmOqNKZz0T2/XG+NHCUwQqBG5S0+LFtqPQCM/rbSfA/JIXZmxLvjwZ15r8jql33 mLAxl7dylP7I5nZyuxq9lVNvAHj8eCmbfliKM=
Received: by 10.229.251.70 with SMTP id mr6mr4075731qcb.276.1311697128146; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 09:18:48 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.70.204 with HTTP; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 09:18:28 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAE358b7heXa_Arp48H=54-A73kHMx5mmCU_GaXfwEQEkb0aZRw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAE358b7heXa_Arp48H=54-A73kHMx5mmCU_GaXfwEQEkb0aZRw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Andrew Arnott <andrewarnott@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 10:18:28 -0600
Message-ID: <CAE358b5ooYa_aTozz3aswcB8Ch2KSyXyqog7x6j+sdS=P=G8fQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "OAuth WG (oauth@ietf.org)" <oauth@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0016363b8df06048d104a8fb4987"
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth2 and clients without browsers
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <oauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth>
List-Post: <mailto:oauth@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 16:18:52 -0000
Trying a different DL... -- Andrew Arnott "I [may] not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." - S. G. Tallentyre On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 6:38 AM, Andrew Arnott <andrewarnott@gmail.com>wrote: > The recent OAuth 2 specs seem to omit the scenario of a client that cannot > host or invoke a browser but could display a URL to the user and ask the > user to enter a PIN. Was this an intentional omission? If I am correct, > this forces those clients to continue to use OAuth 1.0, which is not only > less desirable but it will limit which services they can access. > > Thoughts? > -- > Andrew Arnott > "I [may] not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death > your right to say it." - S. G. Tallentyre >
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth2 and clients without browsers Andrew Arnott
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth2 and clients without browsers Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth2 and clients without browsers Marius Scurtescu
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth2 and clients without browsers Andrew Arnott