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

[Gregory Prisament <[e-mail]>]

Correction: Last paragraph should read:
... Do you think an authorization server could implement
application-specific passwords, passing it off as the "resource owner
credentials" grant type...

On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Gregory Prisament
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> Thanks for the link, that's very similar to what I'm going for.
>
> Any idea why people lost interest in the Device Flow?  It seems like a
> useful option to have!
>
> Also, in doing some research, I came across Google's
> "application-specific passwords", which seem to be another way to
> solve this problem.
> http://support.google.com/mail/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1173270
>
> Any thoughts on application-specific passwords.  Do you think an
> authorization server could implement application-specific passwords,
> passing it off as the "client credentials" grant type.  Would that be
> in spec?
>
> Cheers,
> Greg
>
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 11:47 AM, Justin Richer <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 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 document a while ago and now sits here, somewhat outdated and unloved: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
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Greg Prisament
> Software Architect
> PowerCloud Systems
> [e-mail]
> mobile: [phone]



-- 
Greg Prisament
Software Architect
PowerCloud Systems
[e-mail]
mobile: [phone]