Re: [OAUTH-WG] Dynamic Client Registration

So it's a "known issue". I think that's an artificial reason to leave it 
and a reasonable section to be cut out first.

  -- Justin

On 04/18/2012 03:51 PM, Eran Hammer wrote:
> Because it is in the draft the WG is suppose to consider. It's a stated dependency.
>
> EH
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Torsten Lodderstedt [mailto:torsten@lodderstedt.net]
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 12:50 PM
>> To: Eran Hammer
>> Cc: Hannes Tschofenig; oauth@ietf.org WG
>> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Dynamic Client Registration
>>
>> Hi Eran,
>>
>> why do you see a relationship between dynamic client registration and
>> discovery? Basically, we don't care so far how a client finds tokens and end-
>> user authorization point. Why is this any different for the client registration
>> endpoint (or the revocation endpoint)? Or do you have a bigger picture in
>> mind?
>>
>> regards,
>> Torsten.
>>
>> Am 15.04.2012 22:36, schrieb Eran Hammer:
>>> Where did I say I'm not interested in this work?!
>>>
>>> All I was saying is that it would be better to postpone it until the discovery
>> layer, which this draft clearly relies upon, is a bit clearer. I would be satisfied
>> with a simple note stating that if the discovery work at the APP area isn't
>> complete, the WG may choose to delay work on this document until ready.
>>> EH
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net]
>>>> Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2012 9:01 AM
>>>> To: Eran Hammer
>>>> Cc: Hannes Tschofenig; oauth@ietf.org WG
>>>> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Dynamic Client Registration
>>>>
>>>> Hi Eran,
>>>>
>>>> you are saying that you are not interested in the dynamic client
>>>> registration work and that's OK. There are, however, a couple of
>>>> other folks in the group who had expressed interest to work on it, to
>> review and to implement it.
>>>> Note also that the discovery and the dynamic client registration is
>>>> different from each other; there is a relationship but they are
>> nevertheless different.
>>>> Ciao
>>>> Hannes
>>>>
>>>> PS: Moving the Simple Web Discovery to the Apps area working group
>>>> does not mean that it will not be done. On the contrary there will be
>>>> work happing and we are just trying to figure out what the difference
>>>> between SWD and WebFinger is.
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 15, 2012, at 9:14 AM, Eran Hammer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'd like to see 'Dynamic Client Registration' removed from the
>>>>> charter along
>>>> with SWD for the sole reason that figuring out a generic discovery
>>>> mechanism is going to take some time and this WG has enough other
>>>> work to focus on while that happens elsewhere. I expect this to come
>>>> back in the next round with much more deployment experience and
>> discovery clarity.
>>>>> EH
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: oauth-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-bounces@ietf.org] On
>>>>>> Behalf Of Hannes Tschofenig
>>>>>> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 7:36 AM
>>>>>> To: oauth@ietf.org WG
>>>>>> Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Dynamic Client Registration
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> at the IETF#83 OAuth working group meeting we had some confusion
>>>>>> about the Dynamic Client Registration and the Simple Web Discovery
>>>>>> item. I just listened to the audio recording again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With the ongoing mailing list discussion regarding WebFinger vs.
>>>>>> Simple Web Discovery I hope that folks had a chance to look at the
>>>>>> documents again and so the confusion of some got resolved.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I believe the proposed new charter item is sufficiently clear with
>>>>>> regard to the scope of the work. Right?
>>>>>> Here is the item again:
>>>>>> "
>>>>>> Jul. 2013  Submit 'OAuth Dynamic Client Registration Protocol' to
>>>>>> the IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [Starting point for the work will be
>>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hardjono-oauth-dynreg
>>>>>> ]
>>>>>> "
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course there there is a relationship between Simple Web
>>>>>> Discovery (or
>>>>>> WebFinger) and the dynamic client registration since the client
>>>>>> first needs to discover the client registration endpoint at the
>>>>>> authorization server before interacting with it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now, one thing that just came to my mind when looking again at
>>>>>> draft- hardjono-oauth-dynreq was the following: Could the Client
>>>>>> Registration Request and Response protocol exchange could become a
>>>>>> profile of the SCIM protocol? In some sense this exchange is
>>>>>> nothing else than provisioning an account at the Authorization
>>>>>> Server (along with
>>>> some meta-data).
>>>>>> Is this too far fetched?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ciao
>>>>>> Hannes
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> OAuth mailing list
>>>>>> OAuth@ietf.org
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OAuth mailing list
>>> OAuth@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth