Re: [OAUTH-WG] Native Client Extension

Marius,

I support the extension (as per my previous letter, as I missed this thread over the holidays) and Kiva is/was planning to support this as well.  Given the unpredictable technology environments of many of our customers, this flow is essential for our implementation.

However, now reviewing language in draft-12, I wonder if it isn't more clear to define the extension as using a different response_type (eg, oob_code).  In the past, the use of "oob" has been more of hack to work with existing specs. In truth, it is a unique flow of its own compared to Implict and Auth Code as they are currently defined.  Such a flow would not accept a redirect_url and could use "oob_code" for both response_type and grant_type.

skylar

On Jan 4, 2011, at 11:58 PM, Marius Scurtescu wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Torsten Lodderstedt
> <torsten@lodderstedt.net> wrote:
>> +1
>> 
>> I have asked myself all the time why "oob" disappeared in OAuth 2.0? Does
>> Google use this feature?
> 
> Yes, we are planning to support this, exactly as described in the extension.
> 
> Marius
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth