Re: [OAUTH-WG] Dynamic Client Registration: IPR Confirmation

[Justin Richer <[e-mail]>]

I like the idea of adding some of the text in the introduction, as I 
agree the compatibility is an important (and hard-won) accomplishment. I 
think taking Mike's text, expanding it, and putting it in the 
introduction might serve the overall purpose just fine:

Portions of this specification are derived from the OpenID Connect
Dynamic Registration [OpenID.Registration] specification and from
the User Managed Access [UMA] specification.  This was done
so that implementations of these three specifications will be
compatible with one another.


These are both informative references, so we can reference the ID for UMA.

  -- Justin

On 7/16/2014 7:44 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
> Interesting background information. Maybe we should then extend the note
> Mike provided to also clarify the relationship with the UMA work (both
> in terms to IPR, copyright, and attribution-wise).
>
> It would also make sense to state the relationship in the introduction
> to highlight the compatibility, which I believe is a big accomplishment.
>
> Ciao
> Hannes
>
> On 07/16/2014 01:41 PM, Justin Richer wrote:
>> I thought I had sent this note already, but I don't see it in the
>> archives or in my 'sent' folder:
>>
>> If we're going to point to OpenID Connect (which I'm fine with), then we
>> should clarify that portions were also taken from the UMA specification.
>> In fact, draft -00 actually *was* the UMA specification text entirely.
>> This is also what the OpenID Connect registration specification was
>> (loosely) based on when it was started.
>>
>> In reality, the relationship between these three documents from three
>> different SBO's is more complicated: they all grew up together and
>> effectively merged to become wire-compatible with each other. There were
>> a number of changes that were discussed here in the IETF that OpenID
>> Connect adopted, and a number of changes that were discussed at OIDF
>> that were adopted here. OIDC also extends the IETF draft with a set of
>> OIDC-specific metadata fields and editorial language that makes it fit
>> more closely in the OIDC landscape, but make no mistake: they're the
>> same protocol. In the case of UMA, it's a straight normative reference
>> to the IETF document now because we were able to incorporate those use
>> cases and parameters directly.
>>
>> The trouble is, I'm not sure how to concisely state that all that in the
>> draft text, but it's not as simple as "we copied OpenID", which is what
>> the text below seems to say.
>>
>>   -- Justin
>>
>> On 7/16/2014 6:17 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
>>> Thanks, Mike.
>>>
>>> This is a useful addition and reflects the relationship between the two
>>> efforts.
>>>
>>> Please add it to the next draft version.
>>>
>>> Ciao
>>> Hannes
>>>
>>> On 07/15/2014 09:46 PM, Mike Jones wrote:
>>>> So that the working group has concrete language to consider, propose the
>>>> following language to the OAuth Dynamic Client Registration specification:
>>>>
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>> Portions of this specification are derived from the OpenID Connect
>>>> Dynamic Registration [OpenID.Registration] specification.  This was done
>>>> so that implementations of this specification and OpenID Connect Dynamic
>>>> Registration can be compatible with one another.
>>>>
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>                                                              -- Mike
>>>>
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>> *From:*OAuth [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *Mike Jones
>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 08, 2014 7:15 PM
>>>> *To:* Phil Hunt; Hannes Tschofenig
>>>> *Cc:* Maciej Machulak; [e-mail]
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [OAUTH-WG] Dynamic Client Registration: IPR Confirmation
>>>>
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>> Thinking about this some more, there is one IPR issue that we need to
>>>> address before publication.  This specification is a derivative work
>>>> from the OpenID Connect Dynamic Registration specification
>>>> http://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-registration-1_0.html.  Large
>>>> portions of the text were copied wholesale from that spec to this one,
>>>> so that the two would be compatible.  (This is good thing – not a bad
>>>> thing.)
>>>>
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>> This is easy to address from an IPR perspective – simply acknowledge
>>>> that this spec is a derivative work and provide proper attribution.  The
>>>> OpenID copyright in the spec at
>>>> http://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-registration-1_0.html#Notices
>>>> allows for this resolution.  It says:
>>>>
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>> Copyright (c) 2014 The OpenID Foundation.
>>>>
>>>> The OpenID Foundation (OIDF) grants to any Contributor, developer,
>>>> implementer, or other interested party a non-exclusive, royalty free,
>>>> worldwide copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works from,
>>>> distribute, perform and display, this Implementers Draft or Final
>>>> Specification solely for the purposes of (i) developing specifications,
>>>> and (ii) implementing Implementers Drafts and Final Specifications based
>>>> on such documents, provided that attribution be made to the OIDF as the
>>>> source of the material, but that such attribution does not indicate an
>>>> endorsement by the OIDF.
>>>>
>>>> Let’s add the reference and acknowledgment in the next version.
>>>>
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>                                                              -- Mike
>>>>
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>> *From:*Mike Jones
>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 08, 2014 10:06 AM
>>>> *To:* Phil Hunt; Hannes Tschofenig
>>>> *Cc:* John Bradley; Justin Richer; Maciej Machulak; [e-mail]
>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>> *Subject:* RE: Dynamic Client Registration: IPR Confirmation
>>>>
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>> I likewise do not hold any IPR on these specs.
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> *From: *Phil Hunt <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>> *Sent: *‎7/‎8/‎2014 9:11 AM
>>>> *To: *Hannes Tschofenig <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>> *Cc: *Mike Jones <mailto:[e-mail]>; John Bradley
>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>; Justin Richer <mailto:[e-mail]>;
>>>> Maciej Machulak <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>> *Subject: *Re: Dynamic Client Registration: IPR Confirmation
>>>>
>>>> I confirm I have no IPR disclosures on this document.
>>>>
>>>> Phil
>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 8, 2014, at 4:54, Hannes Tschofenig <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Phil, John, Maciej, Justin, Mike,
>>>>>
>>>>> I am working on the shepherd writeup for the dynamic client registration
>>>>> document and one item in the template requires me to indicate whether
>>>>> each document author has confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
>>>>> disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
>>>>> and BCP 79 have already been filed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Could you please confirm?
>>>>>
>>>>> Ciao
>>>>> Hannes
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OAuth mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth