Re: [OAUTH-WG] Working Group Last Call on Dynamic Client Registration Documents

Mike Jones <> Sun, 06 April 2014 06:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A17881A02A4 for <>; Sat, 5 Apr 2014 23:47:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xzCpn7bBpmAw for <>; Sat, 5 Apr 2014 23:47:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6F751A02BC for <>; Sat, 5 Apr 2014 23:47:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.913.9; Sun, 6 Apr 2014 06:47:35 +0000
Received: from (2a01:111:f400:7c0c::101) by (2a01:111:e400:2c5d::23) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.913.9 via Frontend Transport; Sun, 6 Apr 2014 06:47:35 +0000
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.918.6 via Frontend Transport; Sun, 6 Apr 2014 06:47:35 +0000
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0181.007; Sun, 6 Apr 2014 06:47:03 +0000
From: Mike Jones <>
To: Bill Mills <>, Torsten Lodderstedt <>
Thread-Topic: [OAUTH-WG] Working Group Last Call on Dynamic Client Registration Documents
Thread-Index: Ac9RY/LDqaPPFycZSmKqmisDiThmcg==
Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2014 06:47:03 +0000
Message-ID: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739439A143EA5TK5EX14MBXC286r_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-EOPAttributedMessage: 0
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:; CTRY:US; IPV:CAL; IPV:NLI; EFV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009001)(438001)(377454003)(53754006)(189002)(24454002)(199002)(47736001)(19580405001)(81542001)(84326002)(50986001)(94946001)(47976001)(97186001)(33656001)(80976001)(2009001)(97336001)(76796001)(74876001)(92726001)(47446002)(74706001)(92566001)(95666003)(49866001)(77096001)(20776003)(19580395003)(76176001)(99396002)(53806001)(74502001)(93136001)(4396001)(63696002)(512954002)(83072002)(93516002)(95416001)(85306002)(15202345003)(90146001)(74662001)(87266001)(98676001)(76786001)(94316002)(81342001)(54356001)(85852003)(56776001)(2656002)(65816001)(83322001)(54316002)(16236675002)(76482001)(15975445006)(84676001)(87936001)(56816005)(66066001)(19300405004)(74366001)(55846006)(79102001)(86362001)(77982001)(59766001)(97736001)(81686001)(44976005)(81816001)(80022001)(69226001)(6806004)(46102001)(71186001)(31966008); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:BY2PR03MB027;; FPR:3CA4F9B7.8FF6D3E9.37FCFDB7.50E250C8.2032F; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoDomainNonexistent; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
X-O365ENT-EOP-Header: Message processed by - O365_ENT: Allow from ranges (Engineering ONLY)
X-Forefront-PRVS: 0173C6D4D5
Received-SPF: Pass (: domain of designates as permitted sender) receiver=; client-ip=;;
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Working Group Last Call on Dynamic Client Registration Documents
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2014 06:47:47 -0000

The core spec actually already does speak to this question, Bill. says:

   In some cases, authorization servers MAY choose to accept a software
   statement value directly as a Client ID in an authorization request,
   without a prior dynamic client registration having been performed.
   The circumstances under which an authorization server would do so,
   and the specific software statement characteristics required in this
   case, are beyond the scope of this specification.

This spec is about dynamic registration, and how to accomplish it.  In the case where registration isn't used, other specs or conventions would be needed, which are out of scope for the dynamic registration work (by definition!).

                                                            -- Mike

From: OAuth [] On Behalf Of Bill Mills
Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2014 10:13 PM
To: Torsten Lodderstedt
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Working Group Last Call on Dynamic Client Registration Documents

To me the fundamental question of whether a client has to be registered in each place it is used is quite significant.  We don't address the problem and have not discussed it enough.

On Friday, April 4, 2014 11:39 PM, Torsten Lodderstedt <<>> wrote:
Hi Bill,

which scalability problem are you referring to? As far as I remember there were issues around the management API but not the core protocol.


Am 04.04.2014 um 18:41 schrieb Bill Mills <<>>:
Given the fundamental scalability problem we discussed in London do we really feel we're ready?
On Friday, April 4, 2014 3:07 AM, Hannes Tschofenig <<>> wrote:
Hi all,

This is a Last Call for comments on the dynamic client registration

* OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Client Registration Core Protocol

* OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Client Registration Metadata

Since we have to do the last call for these two documents together we
are setting the call for **3 weeks**.

Please have your comments in no later than April 25th.

Hannes & Derek

OAuth mailing list<>

OAuth mailing list<>