Subject: slightly alternative preamble (was: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Draft -12
feedback deadline)
I propose that the or native applications text be dropped from the first
paragraph in section 4.2 Implicit Grant [1].
There is clearly some disagreement about what is most appropriate for
mobile
-WG] slightly alternative preamble (was: Re: Draft -12
feedback deadline)
Hi Dick,
I agree with you, the OAuth standard should offer clear patterns for
native apps.
All native apps I'm familiar with use the authorization code, which is
because of its support for refresh tokens
alternative preamble (was: Re: Draft -12
feedback deadline)
Hi Dick,
I agree with you, the OAuth standard should offer clear patterns for
native apps.
All native apps I'm familiar with use the authorization code, which is
because of its support for refresh tokens. But the current text
: [OAUTH-WG] slightly alternative preamble (was: Re: Draft -12
feedback deadline)
Hi Dick,
I agree with you, the OAuth standard should offer clear patterns for
native apps.
All native apps I'm familiar with use the authorization code, which is
because of its support for refresh tokens
Brian: I agree with your comments if native apps are not going to be supported
in OAuth v2.
my -1 is towards dropping native app support, and your suggestion was the
easiest thread to comment on.
On 2011-03-07, at 7:15 AM, Brian Campbell wrote:
I don't disagree with any of that, Dick. But
P.
Cc: OAuth WG
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] slightly alternative preamble (was: Re: Draft -12
feedback deadline)
Justin has well stated my view on this. Folks here have explained how the
flows can work for (or doesn't prohibit) a native app, but it also seems clear
that new readers don't pick
I propose that the or native applications text be dropped from the
first paragraph in section 4.2 Implicit Grant [1].
There is clearly some disagreement about what is most appropriate for
mobile/native applications and many, including myself, don't feel that
the implicit grant works well to
