Re: [OAUTH-WG] Dynamic Client Registration

Where did I say I'm not interested in this work?!

All I was saying is that it would be better to postpone it until the discovery layer, which this draft clearly relies upon, is a bit clearer. I would be satisfied with a simple note stating that if the discovery work at the APP area isn't complete, the WG may choose to delay work on this document until ready.

EH

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net]
> Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2012 9:01 AM
> To: Eran Hammer
> Cc: Hannes Tschofenig; oauth@ietf.org WG
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Dynamic Client Registration
> 
> Hi Eran,
> 
> you are saying that you are not interested in the dynamic client registration
> work and that's OK. There are, however, a couple of other folks in the group
> who had expressed interest to work on it, to review and to implement it.
> 
> Note also that the discovery and the dynamic client registration is different
> from each other; there is a relationship but they are nevertheless different.
> 
> Ciao
> Hannes
> 
> PS: Moving the Simple Web Discovery to the Apps area working group does
> not mean that it will not be done. On the contrary there will be work happing
> and we are just trying to figure out what the difference between SWD and
> WebFinger is.
> 
> On Apr 15, 2012, at 9:14 AM, Eran Hammer wrote:
> 
> > I'd like to see 'Dynamic Client Registration' removed from the charter along
> with SWD for the sole reason that figuring out a generic discovery mechanism
> is going to take some time and this WG has enough other work to focus on
> while that happens elsewhere. I expect this to come back in the next round
> with much more deployment experience and discovery clarity.
> >
> > EH
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: oauth-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-bounces@ietf.org] On
> >> Behalf Of Hannes Tschofenig
> >> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 7:36 AM
> >> To: oauth@ietf.org WG
> >> Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Dynamic Client Registration
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> at the IETF#83 OAuth working group meeting we had some confusion
> >> about the Dynamic Client Registration and the Simple Web Discovery
> >> item. I just listened to the audio recording again.
> >>
> >> With the ongoing mailing list discussion regarding WebFinger vs.
> >> Simple Web Discovery I hope that folks had a chance to look at the
> >> documents again and so the confusion of some got resolved.
> >>
> >> I believe the proposed new charter item is sufficiently clear with
> >> regard to the scope of the work. Right?
> >> Here is the item again:
> >> "
> >> Jul. 2013  Submit 'OAuth Dynamic Client Registration Protocol' to the
> >> IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard
> >>
> >> [Starting point for the work will be
> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hardjono-oauth-dynreg
> >> ]
> >> "
> >>
> >> Of course there there is a relationship between Simple Web Discovery
> >> (or
> >> WebFinger) and the dynamic client registration since the client first
> >> needs to discover the client registration endpoint at the
> >> authorization server before interacting with it.
> >>
> >> Now, one thing that just came to my mind when looking again at draft-
> >> hardjono-oauth-dynreq was the following: Could the Client
> >> Registration Request and Response protocol exchange could become a
> >> profile of the SCIM protocol? In some sense this exchange is nothing
> >> else than provisioning an account at the Authorization Server (along with
> some meta-data).
> >>
> >> Is this too far fetched?
> >>
> >> Ciao
> >> Hannes
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> OAuth mailing list
> >> OAuth@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth