Re: [OAUTH-WG] Change grant_type="none" to something less confusing

External, out-of-band, implicit.

It cannot be client because that is not always the case. 

EHL

On Jul 16, 2010, at 12:40, Marius Scurtescu <mscurtescu@google.com> wrote:

> I agree that grant_type=none is confusing. "client" or "direct" sound better.
> 
> Marius
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Justin Richer <jricher@mitre.org> wrote:
>> The choice of the value "none" for the grant_type parameter in the
>> client-credentials case is confusing. I understand the philosophy behind
>> this choice, but I think that calling it "none" here gives the wrong
>> impression. It almost sounds like it's a deny-request on first glance,
>> or even a revoke request of some type. Furthermore, I'd say that there
>> really is an access grant being made here, but it's implicit, and given
>> to the client directly and not to an end user.
>> 
>> I propose we change this key to "client", "implicit", "direct", or
>> something other than "none" to avoid this kind of confusion. Along with
>> this, I would also like the paragraph in 4.1 describing the usage of
>> this grant type to be pulled into its own (admittedly short) subsection.
>> In this way, someone looking to implement this style of auth will have
>> somewhere concrete to look, bringing this method on par with others in
>> section 4.1.
>> 
>>  -- Justin
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> OAuth mailing list
>> OAuth@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth