Re: [OAUTH-WG] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-28: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Tue, 05 May 2015 20:07 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
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 37EB11ACDE5; Tue, 5 May 2015 13:07:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.21
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 kcEMcsV8AgMf; Tue, 5 May 2015 13:07:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 91E421ACD42; Tue, 5 May 2015 13:07:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93062BEB3; Tue, 5 May 2015 21:07:32 +0100 (IST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MVLjmfpNHQXE; Tue, 5 May 2015 21:07:31 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [10.67.44.99] (host86-187-113-0.range86-187.btcentralplus.com [86.187.113.0]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D8BD7BE8E; Tue, 5 May 2015 21:07:30 +0100 (IST)
Message-ID: <554922FF.4060602@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Tue, 05 May 2015 21:07:27 +0100
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Justin Richer <jricher@mit.edu>
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> <AB914C1E-1D45-4597-A6CC-90B5C3C10945@mit.edu> <553AB662.7010303@cs.tcd.ie> <77A2595A-807E-4CBC-86D7-EF5055BE5186@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <77A2595A-807E-4CBC-86D7-EF5055BE5186@mit.edu>
OpenPGP: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="MB0XmASt28Q4pbKPR0Fkt9JKrMTGvDtPE"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/Dej3X6NsjQLb-SIpKpv_evF1xGA>
Cc: draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, oauth-chairs@ietf.org, "<oauth@ietf.org>" <oauth@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 <oauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/>
List-Post: <mailto:oauth@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 May 2015 20:07:38 -0000

Hi Justin,

That's great thanks. I've cleared.

Cheers,
S.

On 05/05/15 20:33, Justin Richer wrote:
> Stephen,
> 
> We’ve incorporated this text into the latest draft:
> 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-29
> 
> Hopefully this will be sufficient to clear the DISCUSS.
> 
> Thanks for your thoughtful review!
>  — Justin
> 
>> On 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’ve worked on this this afternoon and this is my proposed 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
>>>          <xref target="OAuth.Registration.Management"/>, the client or
>>>          developer could attempt to update the registration with different
>>>          metadata values. This process could also be aided by a service
>>>          discovery protocol such as <xref target="OpenID.Discovery"/> 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.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> — 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 smart client
>>>>> could use these components to renegotiate undesirable metadata values."
>>>>>
>>>>> With both of these being informative references? I'm not opposed to it.
>>>>
>>>> That'd work for me, yes, thanks.
>>>>
>>>> S.
>>>
>>
>