Re: [OAUTH-WG] Review of draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-metadata-00

Thank you for the review, responses inline (and this draft still needs 
to be factored back into the main one):

On 04/23/2014 03:14 PM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I read through the document as part of my shepherding task; it is nicely
> written and easy to understand.
>
> I only have a few minor suggestions:
>
> * client_uri: URL of the homepage of the client.
>
> Would it be better to say that this is the URI provides further
> information about the client software (provided by the client software
> developer)?

I personally think "homepage" is a clear designator of that, but would 
not be adverse to extending the definition somewhat.

> * logo_uri: The value of this field MUST point to a valid image file.
>
> Would it make sense to provide a type field here as well, such as in
> HTML (e.g., type="image/png")?

Unless we're going to allow the client to register and manage multiple 
images (please, no), then we shouldn't go out of our way to store 
mimetypes. This is a URL to be fetched and/or stored -- its content 
doesn't much matter.

> * contacts: Would these email addresses be in the format of
> mailto:user@example.com or would you just use joe@example.com?
> I am asking because with the URI scheme one could potentially provide
> other contact information here as well, such as XMPP URIs or so.

I think you could do either, but what I've seen deployed is the non-URI 
version of joe@example.com. I think it would make sense for it to be 
listed as not just email addresses but also other contact URIs -- 
however, I don't think it's particularly useful to devolve into a full 
contact record. It should be simple and actionable by a person, and 
email fits that bill (as well as XMPP might, arguably).

> * policy_uri: Would it be better to call this a privacy notice rather
> than policy document?
> Here is a short description what a privacy notice is:
> https://www.privacyassociation.org/resource_center/privacy_glossary/privacy_notice

I would think that policy document is a superset of privacy notice, right?

> * jwks_uri: The text provides little information about how this element
> is used. I believe that this is an alternative way of using the PoP
> architecture, where the client registers keys with the authorization
> server that can then be tied to access tokens. Right? I could add some
> text in the PoP overview document to explain this and maybe you could
> include a reference to the PoP document (as an informative reference,
> for example).

The text states that this is there for the use of higher level 
protocols. Several of which (including OIDC and BB+, not to mention more 
advanced token types and client authentication methods) have a need to 
tie a key to a client. This, and the proposed jwks value, provide a hook 
for that kind of stuff.

  -- Justin

>
> Ciao
> Hannes
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth