Re: [OAUTH-WG] RFC 7592 - Client Update Request omitted fields
Filip Skokan <panva.ip@gmail.com> Wed, 04 March 2020 16:36 UTC
Return-Path: <panva.ip@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A8E53A1257 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Mar 2020 08:36:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dyqiRQYX571Q for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Mar 2020 08:36:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yw1-xc2e.google.com (mail-yw1-xc2e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::c2e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6DC063A1264 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Mar 2020 08:36:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yw1-xc2e.google.com with SMTP id h6so2558862ywc.8 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 04 Mar 2020 08:36:52 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Dd/q2AOv34rZTUb66JyFtyCwYwzmyGAS0oIr5zV/v24=; b=lv73CZKVWT2CXMisPmMelwB4rgXWLUGr16oGVzsqZ6zMVgfJILtltUhnddTwC1bwQy VY58y97eTHoiiM41QPIc5spCOWbzQfTr5tFhEO3kZmXOJ74lsdANcvLci+avtas19qtG onGdGuMm7ucrJXZaEV91s2aYgLOyz1KZW0qxC/1jb5Ynju09ZM2KDJnrQQvHiXQOwZ3G ba8vBrnYyetMBTA0IeVKpD5GOB1OyGplk4iE2lfvMvGaTHpcbV/26kKzDkdcmrT95qG/ +ZFfSf0cI468YptclK22gg85EOgweUUpqA8Wn4QxRttzxPq3jEVSsY0t0hcYnwG5Ogvi tkgA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Dd/q2AOv34rZTUb66JyFtyCwYwzmyGAS0oIr5zV/v24=; b=Elk70mTEUscqCbS1ACZ0uWMWyLqC8pT7lX9hTi+xjLEXNJcDuYliva0nUQS48wOIop dIr55yPgT54Y7SRkRS/ktPY3zPMKA/KWCiQoVo/fDZXh3t9u3bqDjazZnNCOwa56e3sn 35bpipKjOf/9R0y3LHFj+seVerUcRuw3ySA67wRnb+vEarO9J1tgkswXstrZ9DxCLaa9 HnDyJ6Rk2NGgdcngFDhSyFjVvXq7wi/jjyga0irIYzTR0FQMnQRWT4mhywzbbnFbdwNu f0BtyGnb9NUO+ZpePOY53INBaEVSIzJJ5Mx+DECcuY0Lw8u9MO84AsnacSF4Ffycr+L0 ErXw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ2xUMYZr5k6RAejsOYbioT2Ee4u8Ao2f3Jw7wEOvE1gCQnxIrxQ c1REGUG61sDcLqBdhFVopVXk2sFn90RuLAZgTg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vtkQErSNpW9+Ax8SW96d03R23HqoyjPEWq4lgYBNF7Fs2Q4giMyK+We+jBV+GNQVfk2DVxPYXtUXw8XcGqWq4g=
X-Received: by 2002:a5b:f48:: with SMTP id y8mr3080937ybr.427.1583339811382; Wed, 04 Mar 2020 08:36:51 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CALAqi_8r8h7+t+c2uDdaVzqCNxh33DS65Edo9ea3vQgm+dVEFA@mail.gmail.com> <84FE0330-B7E3-459A-A8A0-32058FAC4B98@mit.edu> <CALAqi_91Xv4QrZsQrU_YY=AKW8H_jX2Kax8gZ0QCxzDGX4DBzg@mail.gmail.com> <E03B5E8E-9EFA-46E2-9A57-BF5C6F3C4AE4@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <E03B5E8E-9EFA-46E2-9A57-BF5C6F3C4AE4@mit.edu>
From: Filip Skokan <panva.ip@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2020 17:36:15 +0100
Message-ID: <CALAqi_8qYq5QPx3u6o84-0_tixPqgdbPW951kdxLFaS_bARqMw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Justin Richer <jricher@mit.edu>
Cc: oauth <oauth@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000004270205a00a0760"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/mS6s5U5uuonEayoEj3ZbQHNSrmg>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] RFC 7592 - Client Update Request omitted fields
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <oauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/oauth/>
List-Post: <mailto:oauth@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2020 16:36:55 -0000
Got it, thanks! Best, Filip On Wed, 4 Mar 2020 at 17:35, Justin Richer <jricher@mit.edu> wrote: > I’m not sure what you’re asking — the text is not left over from anything > and is intentionally included. That text is saying that if I leave out the > field then the server treats it just like as if I had sent in a null value. > So the following are equivalent: > > { > “client_name”: “foo”, > “tos_uri”: null > } > > And > > { > “client_name”: “foo”, > } > > > In both cases, it’s a signal that the client is removing the value from > the “tos_uri” field. It does not mean that the AS leaves the “tos_uri” > field with the value that it previously was (ie, a PATCH style request). > > The AS can reject the update request if it doesn’t want to allow the > client to blank out that field, for whatever reason. > > — Justin > > > On Mar 4, 2020, at 10:42 AM, Filip Skokan <panva.ip@gmail.com> wrote: > > So the following > > Omitted fields MUST be treated as null or empty values by the server, >> indicating the client's request to delete them from the client's >> registration. > > > Does not mean the server needs to accept requests where fields are > omitted? Is that a left over from previous drafts then? > > S pozdravem, > *Filip Skokan* > > > On Wed, 4 Mar 2020 at 16:37, Justin Richer <jricher@mit.edu> wrote: > >> Your interpretation was our intent with that. It’s a full replace of the >> object. We had debating having PATCH style semantics, but ultimately >> decided that that was too complex for the most common update actions that a >> client would have. >> >> — Justin >> >> On Mar 3, 2020, at 8:42 AM, Filip Skokan <panva.ip@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hello everyone, >> >> Section 2.2 of RFC 7592 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7592#section-2.2> >> (Dynamic Client Registration Management Protocol) has the following two >> statements that oppose one another. >> >> This request MUST include all client metadata fields as returned to the >>> client from a previous registration, read, or update operation. >> >> >> Omitted fields MUST be treated as null or empty values by the server, >>> indicating the client's request to delete them from the client's >>> registration. >> >> >> What's the intention here? Should a server be accepting requests that are >> missing client properties it has either on the record or "resolved" or not? >> >> Personally I like to always make sure the client submits everything and >> to remove properties it must pass null or empty string as the values. That >> way the request is 100% intentional about the final state of the record it >> wants to update to. >> >> What do you think? >> >> Best, >> *Filip* >> _______________________________________________ >> OAuth mailing list >> OAuth@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >> >> >> >
- [OAUTH-WG] RFC 7592 - Client Update Request omitt… Filip Skokan
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] RFC 7592 - Client Update Request o… Justin Richer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] RFC 7592 - Client Update Request o… Filip Skokan
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] RFC 7592 - Client Update Request o… Justin Richer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] RFC 7592 - Client Update Request o… Filip Skokan
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] RFC 7592 - Client Update Request o… Filip Skokan
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] RFC 7592 - Client Update Request o… Justin Richer