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

Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 24 April 2015 22:02 UTC

Return-Path: <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F8F51ACE41; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 15:02:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8T_IB7-knosd; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 15:01:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-la0-x231.google.com (mail-la0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 225081ACE30; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 15:01:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by layy10 with SMTP id y10so44683208lay.0; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 15:01:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=YMQ+oHtsowIA6CBsqrSkaZ/KsyXfZl/v9g8i8UkTiPI=; b=zI9Qz7fTpiEaFTYew/IHaWSE1Nc/9XIRFnur/FjEcFr1YagczuZ1vRNKhehEsXJT3O 83HMtDrm+OMPs5hDDpzFe0Z6wyXpR3nDFyhStfHujwGTxE2YWkqZ5/lvoLyR41XU6+Zt +d0r09kFxqvIbMHvrD0flYB/80sAfcJBr9p52LKKRxLbu+NTNyXwEv3A8S5Hs051aRUO ynjViW5JkHkSurYfW1LgbPGq/f3OxdPU6mshul+QIOL1lAowupt/NG/yD+enbsAXLbh0 YBgQY9z6WYEcfKrAp8LCONHxLKkkchkH8HlyDIsyIMybvBJdeD3A7izB7WY7hih+dpln NTjA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.19.199 with SMTP id h7mr444028lae.32.1429912917711; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 15:01:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.11.199 with HTTP; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 15:01:57 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <553AB662.7010303@cs.tcd.ie>
References: <20150424115205.3265.73381.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <553A3289.2000401@cs.tcd.ie> <553A34FE.8@mit.edu> <553A35E4.1000904@cs.tcd.ie> <553A376A.1070806@mit.edu> <553A3929.3000002@cs.tcd.ie> <AB914C1E-1D45-4597-A6CC-90B5C3C10945@mit.edu> <553AB662.7010303@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 18:01:57 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHbuEH6AS=N_pX+bByjGJ3d-Kr0xcwKJ+sUDxFDsuPMpjG8wXQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e014942aa85214305147f8bc9
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/-fbh3ipa-C_JstSo01IVNvaoT9o>
Cc: draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, oauth-chairs@ietf.org, "<oauth@ietf.org>" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-28: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <oauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/>
List-Post: <mailto:oauth@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 22:02:01 -0000

Thank you, both!

On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 5:32 PM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
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 <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
> 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