On May 2, 2:19 am, Brian Eaton bea...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 1:43 AM, Blaine Cook rom...@gmail.com wrote:
1. None. Applications that cannot receive callbacks (or that have
static callback endpoints) should be configured as such in an
out-of-band flow, along with the
Ok, thankfully it seems here we have much more consensus. I don't see
anyone disagreeing that we want an 'oob' value for the callback. I
would like to make the following changes to the (proposed) spec so
that consumers (or service providers) aren't required to add an extra
verification code entry
On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 12:17 PM, Blaine Cook rom...@gmail.com wrote:
Any concerns with moving forward with this wording? I believe it's
important to continue supporting desktop applications that do not have
support for entering verification codes, and this approach allows
service providers to
Version 3, where the string literal is supposed to be interpreted as
manual entry or out-of-band exchange of the callback token.
Version 1 is already supported. There is interest to support some form
of manual entry (for instance, SPs could give less stern warnings for
such desktop apps).
On
On May 1, 1:43 am, Blaine Cook rom...@gmail.com wrote:
We need to gain some consensus around the value (or lack thereof) that
should be used for the oauth_callback parameter that is sent from the
consumer to the service provider when obtaining the request token in
the new flow. Our options:
On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 1:43 AM, Blaine Cook rom...@gmail.com wrote:
1. None. Applications that cannot receive callbacks (or that have
static callback endpoints) should be configured as such in an
out-of-band flow, along with the service provider issues the consumer
key and secret.
Just
On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Brian Eaton bea...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 1:43 AM, Blaine Cook rom...@gmail.com wrote:
1. None. Applications that cannot receive callbacks (or that have
static callback endpoints) should be configured as such in an
out-of-band flow, along
: Friday, May 01, 2009 10:27 AM
To: oauth@googlegroups.com
Subject: [oauth] Re: Desktop Application Callback Value
On May 1, 2009, at 12:02 PM, Breno de Medeiros wrote:
Version 3, where the string literal is supposed to be interpreted as
manual entry or out-of-band exchange
On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Blaine Cook rom...@gmail.com wrote:
2. String literal none
3. String literal, other than none
+1 for an explicit string (whether none or oob)
Luca
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to
We either need an explicit string for the null callback, or we need to
increment the version number, because the SP needs a way to determine
which OAuth dialect the consumer is speaking as early on in the dance as
possible.
I believe that it's more pain than its worth to increment the version
10 matches
Mail list logo
