Re: [OAUTH-WG] Dynamic Client Registration

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