Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth WG Re-Chartering

[Mike Jones <[e-mail]>]

FYI, the OpenID Connect dynamic client registration spec is at http://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-registration-1_0.html.  You can find points to all the Connect specs at http://openid.net/connect/.

                                                            -- Mike

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of George Fletcher
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 6:28 AM
To: Torsten Lodderstedt
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth WG Re-Chartering

Hi Torsten,

I guess I worry that trying to solve all the use cases that get pulled in with dynamic client registration will take a long time. I've been involved with both the UMA work and the OpenID Connect work regarding dynamic client registration and some reasonable constraints and expectations need to be set in order to reach consensus.

And what John said... since he beat my response:)

Thanks,
George

On 3/22/12 4:40 AM, Torsten Lodderstedt wrote:

Hi George,

I see two distinct areas of interoperability, which are Client-AS and AS-RS. Dynamic client registration belongs to Client-AS whereas JWT & AS-RS communication belong to the later area.

OAuth 2.0 currently (not fully) covers Client-AS and does not address AS-RS. In my opinion, the WG should decide whether we first complete Client-AS and address AS-RS later on or vice versa.

I'm in favour of completing Client-AS first and consider client registration a major missing piece. Why? Because otherwise clients cannot dynamically bind to any OAuth-AS at runtime but have to pre-register (with any?) :-(.

regards,
Torsten.



Am 21.03.2012 21:50, schrieb George Fletcher:
+1 to JWT and AS-RS communication over dynamic registration

On 3/21/12 3:52 PM, John Bradley wrote:

I don't think dynamic registration completely removes the need for a public client, that can't keep secrets.



While we did do dynamic client registration for Connect that is a more constrained use case.

I would put JWT and AS-RS communication as higher priorities than dynamic registration.

Partially because they are more self contained issues.



John B.

On 2012-03-21, at 4:35 PM, Torsten Lodderstedt wrote:



In my opinion, dynamic client registration would allow us to drop public client thus simplifying the core spec.



regards,

Torsten.



Am 15.03.2012 16:00, schrieb Eran Hammer:

I believe most do, except for the dynamic client registration. I don't have strong objections to it, but it is the least important and least defined / deployed proposal on the list. The AS->RS work is probably simpler and more useful at this point.



EH



-----Original Message-----

From: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf

Of Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)

Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 4:47 AM

To: ext Blaine Cook; Hannes Tschofenig

Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth WG Re-Chartering



Hi Blaine,



These are indeed good requirements you stated below.



When you look at the list of topics do you think that the proposed items

indeed fulfill them?



Ciao

Hannes





-----Original Message-----

From: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf

Of ext Blaine Cook

Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 1:31 PM

To: Hannes Tschofenig

Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> WG

Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth WG Re-Chartering



On 14 March 2012 20:21, Hannes Tschofenig



wrote:

So, here is a proposal:



[Editor's Note: New work for the group. 5 items maximum! ]



Aug. 2012    Submit 'Token Revocation' to the IESG for consideration

as a Proposed Standard

Nov. 2012    Submit 'JSON Web Token (JWT)' to the IESG for

consideration as a Proposed Standard

Nov. 2012    Submit 'JSON Web Token (JWT) Bearer Token Profiles for

OAuth 2.0' to the IESG for consideration

Jan. 2013    Submit 'OAuth Dynamic Client Registration Protocol' to

the IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard

Sep. 2012    Submit 'OAuth Use Cases' to the IESG for consideration

as an Informational RFC



This looks great to me.



I have serious concerns about feature-creep, and think that the OAuth

WG should strongly limit its purview to these issues. In general, I

think it prudent for this working group in particular to consider

standardisation of work only under the following criteria:



1. Proposals must have a direct relationship to the mechanism of OAuth

(and not, specifically, bound to an application-level protocol).

2. Proposals must have significant adoption in both enterprise and

startup environments.

3. Any proposal must be driven based on a consideration of the

different approaches, as adopted in the wild, and strive to be a

better synthesis of those approaches, not a means to an end.



These are the constraints with which I started the OAuth project, and

they're more relevant than ever. I'd hate to see OAuth fail in the end

because of a WS-*-like death by standards-pile-on.



b.

_______________________________________________

OAuth mailing list

[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

_______________________________________________

OAuth mailing list

[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

_______________________________________________

OAuth mailing list

[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

_______________________________________________

OAuth mailing list

[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth





_______________________________________________

OAuth mailing list

[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth