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

[Hannes Tschofenig <[e-mail]>]

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
>