Re: [OAUTH-WG] Working Group Last Call on OAuth 2.0 Discovery

I agree with Samuel's comments wrt jwks_uri and registration_endpoint; and
support the name change to “OAuth 2.0 Authorization Server Discovery
Metadata” (or possibly “OAuth 2.0 Authorization Server Discovery”; but I'd
rather narrow down the scope to only talk about metadata, without discovery
mechanism of that metadata; I won't fight for that though, it's just a
preference, not a strong opinion)

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 12:33 PM Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
wrote:

> Thanks for your comments, Samuel.  Yes, you’re right that jwks_uri should
> be OPTIONAL, since not all use cases need keys.  Likewise,
> registration_endpoint should be OPTIONAL, rather than RECOMMENDED.
>
>
>
> The grant_type values are defined in OAuth Dynamic Client Registration
> [RFC 7591] and are identifiers for the grant type concept defined in RFC
> 6749.  They identify the grant types that can be used at the Token
> Endpoint.  The response_type concept is defined in RFC 6749, and identifies
> a response syntax from the authorization endpoint.  We can say more to
> differentiate these in the next draft.
>
>
>
> BTW, lest it be in doubt, I support this draft moving forward, with the
> name changed to “OAuth 2.0 Authorization Server Discovery” or “OAuth 2.0
> Authorization Server Discovery Metadata” – as discussed in the thread
> “OAuth 2.0 Discovery Location”.  I’m also open to introducing the “/.well-known/oauth-authorization-server”
> identifier, as discussed in that thread.
>
>
>
>                                                           -- Mike
>
>
>
> *From:* OAuth [mailto:oauth-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Samuel
> Erdtman
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 9, 2016 11:28 PM
> *To:* Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>
> *Cc:* oauth@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [OAUTH-WG] Working Group Last Call on OAuth 2.0 Discovery
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I sent a few comments two weeks ago that has not been explicitly commented
> on. (I might have sent them in the wrong way, if so sorry about that)
>
>
>
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/Z0LCBuvFDCQTd4xfwoddlbC2P7w
>
>
>
> Most of the comments are minor but I would like to se
>
> jwks_uri to be changed from REQUIRED to OPTIONAL or RECOMMENDED
>
> and at least get a comment of the difference
> between response_types_supported and grant_types_supported
>
>
>
> Best regards
>
> //Samuel
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 2:40 PM, Hannes Tschofenig <
> hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> This is a Last Call for comments on the  OAuth 2.0 Discovery specification:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-discovery-01
>
> Since this document was only adopted recently we are running this last
> call for **3 weeks**.
>
> Please have your comments in no later than March 10th.
>
> Ciao
> Hannes & Derek
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>