Re: [OAUTH-WG] Dynamic Client Registration

Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten@lodderstedt.net> Wed, 18 April 2012 19:49 UTC

Return-Path: <torsten@lodderstedt.net>
X-Original-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 219F721F8532 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 12:49:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rBnojUh-vLdk for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 12:49:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtprelay01.ispgateway.de (smtprelay01.ispgateway.de [80.67.31.39]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF08C21F84D3 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 12:49:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [79.253.18.109] (helo=[192.168.71.36]) by smtprelay01.ispgateway.de with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from <torsten@lodderstedt.net>) id 1SKase-0000Pj-4a; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 21:49:32 +0200
Message-ID: <4F8F1ACE.4030407@lodderstedt.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 21:49:34 +0200
From: Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten@lodderstedt.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Eran Hammer <eran@hueniverse.com>
References: <5F51A14F-D548-4D29-B20F-5C3DCB3CB705@gmx.net> <0CBAEB56DDB3A140BA8E8C124C04ECA2FE7F47@P3PWEX2MB008.ex2.secureserver.net> <6760C38E-7C0C-412F-A285-8F4CB2858F30@gmx.net> <0CBAEB56DDB3A140BA8E8C124C04ECA2FE92E4@P3PWEX2MB008.ex2.secureserver.net>
In-Reply-To: <0CBAEB56DDB3A140BA8E8C124C04ECA2FE92E4@P3PWEX2MB008.ex2.secureserver.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Df-Sender: dG9yc3RlbkBsb2RkZXJzdGVkdC1vbmxpbmUuZGU=
Cc: "oauth@ietf.org WG" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Dynamic Client Registration
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 19:49:38 -0000

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