+1 - we'll end up requiring some parameter, as agent sniffing can't handle all 
our needs.

- cmort


On 4/10/10 12:08 AM, "Torsten Lodderstedt" <tors...@lodderstedt.net> wrote:

+1

Am 10.04.2010 02:20, schrieb Allen Tom:
Re: [OAUTH-WG] A display parameter for user authorization requests +1

Not sure If it's possible for different SPs to agree on the specs for each 
mode, but as we learned from implementing OpenID, it's very useful for the 
client to have an interface to indicate to the AS how the UI should be rendered.

At least in Yahoo's case, we'd like to see all the display modes you listed, 
although I'm unclear what "none" is.

Allen




On 4/9/10 3:24 AM, "Luke Shepard" <lshep...@facebook.com> wrote:


I am still not sure why we *need* discovery in order to just add a "display" 
parameter to the spec.

I would like to see a set like the following supported:

-         popup

-         fullpage

-         touch (for smart phones (like iPhone)-like phones)

-         mobile (for older-mobile phones)

-         none


As Allen mentioned, the "popup" mode was already defined with some success in 
OpenID UX: 
http://svn.openid.net/repos/specifications/user_interface/1.0/trunk/openid-user-interface-extension-1_0.html#anchor4

I agree that it can be difficult to standardize all of these right now - I 
think the best is to see what's being used in production now by different 
players and  see if we can get agreement on that. At least some broad 
categories could be established now to aid interop.


From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Eran 
Hammer-Lahav
 Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 6:34 PM
 To: Marius Scurtescu; Anthony Nadalin
 Cc: OAuth WG
 Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] A display parameter for user authorization requests

 They are, but thinking about interop for both parts is the same work. Once you 
figure out what the client might need, you figure out what the server may 
support. At that point discovery is as simple as giving these different options 
names and putting this information somewhere.

I am not saying a spec must cover both, but it is worth thinking about it at 
the same time. For example, a decision about allowing requesting custom size 
popup vs. fixed popup options vs. pre-defined categories, all require different 
discovery needs. If the feature allows the client to say "I want a 400x500 
popup", you just need to say "popups are supported". But if you want just allow 
full browser or popup (of fixed sizes), and do not require a server to support 
all of them, you need to express what is supported.

Given the wide range of UI options, without either mandating everything or 
discovery, this feature offers little interop value (which means little reason 
to write as a standard).

EHL


On 3/30/10 5:58 PM, "Marius Scurtescu" <mscurte...@google.com> wrote:
Aren't these independent issues?

Regardless how the client figures what the server supports (discovery
or hard code configuration) it must have a way to tell the
Authorization Server its preferences when it sends the user over.

Marius



On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 8:50 PM, Anthony Nadalin <tony...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> So I doubt that the client always knows what the server supports, the server 
> should be open in allowing all parties to find out what is supported
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of 
> Brian Eaton
> Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 5:44 PM
> To: Raffi Krikorian
> Cc: OAuth WG
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] A display parameter for user authorization requests
>
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Raffi Krikorian <ra...@twitter.com> wrote:
>> why does a client need to discover what the server supports?
>> presumably the client would already know given that they are integrating 
>> with it?
>
> +1.
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
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




_______________________________________________
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

Reply via email to