[OAUTH-WG] Dynamic Registration Plan: Your Feedback Needed!

Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net> Thu, 30 January 2014 09:08 UTC

Return-Path: <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>
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 0DB821A0504 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 01:08:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.095
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.095 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DATE_IN_PAST_24_48=1.34, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 2B3bLwmHyVlp for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 01:08:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.20]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59A891A04FD for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 01:08:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.10.205] ([213.162.68.81]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx001) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MXI5V-1VoG6A02E9-00WH9K for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 10:08:27 +0100
Message-ID: <52E87DE4.1070000@gmx.net>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 04:04:52 +0000
From: Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: oauth@ietf.org
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="m6V4NT39wk5fnLaPB0JnE0TqKhPvwsGJC"
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:t7OCdMEOWuQnT82sMaru5IGctqW9fPjS3X5PN9jyUEc4Awnpct6 BCIazchZJxbQmn1SX9VTBbekmgZ4Pd7sn70VJedgL7+Fu7/46lmC7L78ht0NhAUMbAq1XdX Sp1IzFlu4dKTqUuJCTISFPoGD2rgImjzpy37R8d/FADO/bPa23rVNBiC61HfQZ9lDTMyotE QKlKq3fN8mq/csO+hpvOg==
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Dynamic Registration Plan: Your Feedback Needed!
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: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 09:08:34 -0000

Hi all,

as you have seen from the meeting minutes of our recent status chat it
is time to proceed with the dynamic client registration work.

The earlier version of the dynamic client registration document was
split into three parts, namely
  (1) the current working group draft containing only minimal
functionality,
  (2) a document describing meta-data, and
  (3) a document containing management functionality.

This change was made as outcome of the discussions we had more or less
over the last 9 months.

The latter two documents are individual submissions at this point. New
content is not available with the recent changes. So, it is one of those
document management issues.

I had a chat with Stephen about WG adoption of the two individual
submissions as WG items. It was OK for him given that it is a purely
document management action. However, before we turn the documents into
WG items we need your feedback on a number of issues:

1) Do you have concerns with the document split? Do you object or
approve it?
2) Is the separation of the functionality into these three documents
correct? Should the line be drawn differently?
3) Do you have comments on the documents overall?

We would like to receive high-level feedback within a week. We are also
eager to hear from implementers and other projects using the dynamic
client registration work (such as OpenID Connect, UMA, the
BlueButton/GreenButton Initiative, etc.)

For more detailed reviews please wait till we re-do the WGLC (which we
plan to do soon). We have to restart the WGLC due to discussions last
years and the resulting changes to these documents.

Ciao
Hannes & Derek

PS: Derek and I also think that Phil should become co-auhor of these
documents for his contributions.