Re: [OAUTH-WG] PAR metadata

[Torsten Lodderstedt <[e-mail]>]

Hi Filip, 

> On 31. Dec 2019, at 16:22, Filip Skokan <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> I don't think we need a *_auth_method_* metadata for every endpoint the client calls directly, none of the new specs defined these (e.g. device authorization endpoint or CIBA), meaning they also didn't follow the scheme from RFC 8414 where introspection and revocation got its own metadata. In most cases the unfortunately named `token_endpoint_auth_method` and its related metadata is what's used by clients for all direct calls anyway.
> 
> The same principle could be applied to signing (and encryption) algorithms as well.
> 
> This I do not follow, auth methods and their signing is dealt with by using `token_endpoint_auth_methods_supported` and `token_endpoint_auth_signing_alg_values_supported` - there's no encryption for the `_jwt` client auth methods. 
> Unless it was meant to address the Request Object signing and encryption metadata, which is defined and IANA registered by OIDC. PAR only references JAR section 6.1 and 6.2 for decryption/signature validation and these do not mention the metadata (e.g. request_object_signing_alg) anymore since draft 07.

Dammed! You are so right. Sorry, I got confused somehow. 

> 
> PS: I also found this comment related to the same question about auth metadata but for CIBA.

Thanks for sharing. 

> 
> Best,
> Filip

thanks,
Torsten. 

> 
> 
> On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 at 15:38, Torsten Lodderstedt <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Ronald just sent me an email asking whether we will define metadata for 
> 
> pushed_authorization_endpoint_auth_methods_supported and
> pushed_authorization_endpoint_auth_signing_alg_values_supported.
> 
> The draft right now utilises the existing token endpoint authentication methods so there is basically no need to define another parameter. The same principle could be applied to signing (and encryption) algorithms as well. 
> 
> What’s your opinion?
> 
> best regards,
> Torsten.