Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth 2 delegation flow names
David Recordon <recordond@gmail.com> Tue, 08 June 2010 18:47 UTC
Return-Path: <recordond@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: oauth@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05ADF3A67C1 for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Jun 2010 11:47:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.139
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.139 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.046, BAYES_40=-0.185]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l2bJHpKsQPoU for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Jun 2010 11:47:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com (mail-yx0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC4DA3A6893 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Jun 2010 11:47:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yxt33 with SMTP id 33so985695yxt.31 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 08 Jun 2010 11:47:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=bzSnEjuu6ObuKkEAbERuB371tT9T3j5k7ZEJQNWml6M=; b=iZHNiEAIGWmToxeB8aN9jZZD8EprXyG/BMe/NmulhowZU9ByBptatPCERizkQ7x5aP 4x94PU017L8wrrrj7G1E2GpRj1grWBGwkLmhoQLP6AcsIplkuyD8C5jN8YExq1ngXxBe dqjhCbfzuX8SNCwwY4g1M8YzJY4WYI9IWy0dI=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=Gh51sjBEdTZrnlCLcP04P5ORQJNXuUsPbCg6lMa7KwoTvF1Wx8I3Lght28S4qc/BW/ WnMbYQijmTRZvl6jSensFf6xBW7c+BAeSoYNrvio+QTBnfNoL3K5969DehMgqpeYQuAH kG6HofkTnln7wfjkm41WGAvU0MDLsRRNUAu20=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.150.166.13 with SMTP id o13mr15687388ybe.370.1276022843334; Tue, 08 Jun 2010 11:47:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.231.192.4 with HTTP; Tue, 8 Jun 2010 11:47:23 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTik6OAC4KgBgDAAGUUDH-g434HU6HHuKCr5Ih1ko@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTilDRHVUgD7YCjW670qQpMzrLgUNcNI1XHW95JnV@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTik6OAC4KgBgDAAGUUDH-g434HU6HHuKCr5Ih1ko@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2010 11:47:23 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTilj22nt9lvpfz55CfS-qm5DHYT4mMjy4Jr0KQy1@mail.gmail.com>
From: David Recordon <recordond@gmail.com>
To: Marius Scurtescu <mscurtescu@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: OAuth WG <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth 2 delegation flow names
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <oauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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, 08 Jun 2010 18:47:37 -0000
s/us/use/ On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 11:47 AM, David Recordon <recordond@gmail.com> wrote: > I'd strongly prefer them to be named based on where they're largely > intended for us. "Polling" has become a bad word especially with the > advent of PubSubHubbub and doesn't describe that it's meant for us on > hardware devices. > > --David > > > On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Marius Scurtescu <mscurtescu@google.com> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I find the names of the user delegation flows a bit misleading. These >> flows are currently named: "User-Agent", "Web Server" and "Device". >> The names are pointing to the typical client for these flows, but >> these are not the only use cases, and this is where it can be >> misleading. >> >> For example: >> - "User-Agent" can also be used use by native apps and web apps >> - "Web Server" can also be used by JavaScript based clients and native apps >> - "Device" can also be used by native apps and web apps >> >> Instead of naming them after a typical client, maybe we can name them >> based on some technical characteristics of the flow. >> >> The "User-Agent" flow is characterized by the fact that the access >> token is returned directly to the client, no verification code step is >> used. >> >> The "Web Server" flow is characterized by the fact that a verification >> code is first returned which then needs to be exchanged for tokens >> with a direct call from client to authz server. >> >> The "Device" flow is mainly characterized by the fact that a polling >> mechanism is used to retrieve the tokens. >> >> How about the following names: >> - "Web Server" -> "Verification Code" >> - "Device" -> "Polling" >> >> Not sure about the User-Agent flow. Since this flow does not have any >> direct calls from client to authz server, everything is passed through >> the browser, "User-Agent" could be the right name? >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Marius >> _______________________________________________ >> OAuth mailing list >> OAuth@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >> >
- [OAUTH-WG] OAuth 2 delegation flow names Marius Scurtescu
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth 2 delegation flow names David Recordon
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth 2 delegation flow names David Recordon