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 <jric...@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
