Re: [OAUTH-WG] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-28: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Kathleen Moriarty <[e-mail]>]

Thank you, both!

On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 5:32 PM, Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>
>
> On 24/04/15 22:27, Justin Richer wrote:
> > Stephen, I’ve worked on this this afternoon and this is my proposed text:
> >
> >           The response to such a
> >            situation is out of scope for this specification but could
> include
> >            filing a report with the application developer or
> authorization
> >           server provider, attempted re-registration with different
> metadata
> >           values, or various other methods. For instance, if the server
> also
> >           supports a registration management mechanism such as that
> defined in
> >           <xref target="OAuth.Registration.Management"/>, the client or
> >           developer could attempt to update the registration with
> different
> >           metadata values. This process could also be aided by a service
> >           discovery protocol such as <xref target="OpenID.Discovery"/>
> which
> >           can list a server's capabilities, allowing a client to make a
> more
> >           informed registration request. The use of any such management
> or
> >           discovery system is OPTIONAL and outside the scope of this
> >           specification.
> >
> > Does this text work for you?
>
> It does, nicely.
>
> Thanks,
> S.
>
>
> >
> >  — Justin
> >
> >> On Apr 24, 2015, at 8:38 AM, Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 24/04/15 13:30, Justin Richer wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> OK, so are you asking for something like:
> >>>
> >>> "If the server supports an update mechanism such as
> [Dyn-Reg-Management]
> >>> and a discovery mechanism such as [OIDC-Discovery], then a smart client
> >>> could use these components to renegotiate undesirable metadata values."
> >>>
> >>> With both of these being informative references? I'm not opposed to it.
> >>
> >> That'd work for me, yes, thanks.
> >>
> >> S.
> >
>
>


-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen