Re: [OAUTH-WG] Device Code expiration and syntax

Yes, I think this bled over from the original spec.

Google's Device endpoint doesn't use a response_type param.

It's removed in -05.

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 4:15 PM, John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com> wrote:

> I think response mode is only needed if you are overloading a existing
> authorization endpoint.
>
> URI are cheep so I don’t see the value.
>
>
>
> On Mar 13, 2017, at 8:47 AM, Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 1:54 PM, William Denniss <wdenniss@google.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Justin Richer <jricher@mit.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Secondly, I had a question about the “response_type” parameter to the
>>>> device endpoint. This parameter is required and it has a single, required
>>>> value, with no registry or other possibility of extension. What’s the
>>>> point? If it’s for “parallelism”, I’ll note that this is *not* the
>>>> authorization endpoint (as the user is not present) and such constraints
>>>> need not apply here.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Good points here. At a guess, it bled in from the OAuth spec. If it's
>>> not needed, we should remove it.
>>>
>>>
>>> I’d vote for removal, I don’t see the point.
>>>
>>
> +1 on removal of the “response_type” parameter from the Device
> Authorization Request
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>
>
>