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

[George Fletcher <[e-mail]>]

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]] 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]
>>>>>> 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]] On Behalf
>>>>>>> Of ext Blaine Cook
>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 1:31 PM
>>>>>>> To: Hannes Tschofenig
>>>>>>> Cc:[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]
>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> OAuth mailing list
>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> OAuth mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> OAuth mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>>   
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OAuth mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth