Return-Path: 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> <553AB662.7010303@cs.tcd.ie> Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 18:01:57 -0400 Message-ID: From: Kathleen Moriarty To: Stephen Farrell Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e014942aa85214305147f8bc9 Archived-At: Cc: draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg@ietf.org, The IESG , oauth-chairs@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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 22:02:01 -0000 --089e014942aa85214305147f8bc9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thank you, both! On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 5:32 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote: > > > On 24/04/15 22:27, Justin Richer wrote: > > Stephen, I=E2=80=99ve worked on this this afternoon and this is my prop= osed 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 > > , the client = or > > developer could attempt to update the registration with > different > > metadata values. This process could also be aided by a servic= e > > discovery protocol such as > 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. > > > > > > =E2=80=94 Justin > > > >> On Apr 24, 2015, at 8:38 AM, Stephen Farrell > 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 clie= nt > >>> could use these components to renegotiate undesirable metadata values= ." > >>> > >>> With both of these being informative references? I'm not opposed to i= t. > >> > >> That'd work for me, yes, thanks. > >> > >> S. > > > > --=20 Best regards, Kathleen --089e014942aa85214305147f8bc9 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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=E2=80=99ve worked on this this afternoon and this is my pro= posed text:
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0The response to such a
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 situation is out of scope for= this specification but could include
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 filing a report with the appl= ication developer or authorization
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0server provider, attempted re-= registration with different metadata
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0values, or various other metho= ds. For instance, if the server also
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0supports a registration manage= ment mechanism such as that defined in
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<xref target=3D"OAuth.= Registration.Management"/>, the client or
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0developer could attempt to upd= ate the registration with different
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0metadata values. This process = could also be aided by a service
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0discovery protocol such as <= ;xref target=3D"OpenID.Discovery"/> which
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0can list a server's capabi= lities, allowing a client to make a more
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0informed registration request.= The use of any such management or
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0discovery system is OPTIONAL a= nd outside the scope of this
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0specification.
>
> Does this text work for you?

It does, nicely.

Thanks,
S.


>
>=C2=A0 =E2=80=94 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 sma= rt client
>>> could use these components to renegotiate undesirable metadata= values."
>>>
>>> With both of these being informative references? I'm not o= pposed to it.
>>
>> That'd work for me, yes, thanks.
>>
>> S.
>




--
=

Best regards,
Kathleen
--089e014942aa85214305147f8bc9--