Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth 2.0 Discovery Location

I'm fine with this clarification as it is more correctly describes the 
purpose of the document.

Thanks,
George

On 2/29/16 5:34 PM, Brian Campbell wrote:
> +1 for "OAuth 2.0 Authorization Server Discovery” from those two options.
>
> But what about "OAuth 2.0 Authorization Server Metadata”?
>
> The document in its current scope (which I agree with, BTW) isn't 
> really about discovery so much as about describing the metadata at 
> some well-known(ish) resource.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Mike Jones 
> <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com <mailto:Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>> wrote:
>
>     It’s clear that people want us to move to the name “OAuth 2.0
>     Authorization Server Discovery”. The editors will plan to make
>     that change in the draft addressing Working Group Last Call comments.
>
>     Thanks all,
>
>     -- Mike
>
>     *From:*Samuel Erdtman [mailto:samuel@erdtman.se
>     <mailto:samuel@erdtman.se>]
>     *Sent:* Saturday, February 27, 2016 6:47 AM
>     *To:* Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com
>     <mailto:Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>>
>     *Cc:* Vladimir Dzhuvinov <vladimir@connect2id.com
>     <mailto:vladimir@connect2id.com>>; oauth@ietf.org
>     <mailto:oauth@ietf.org>
>
>
>     *Subject:* Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth 2.0 Discovery Location
>
>     +1 for “OAuth 2.0 Authorization Server Discovery”
>
>     //Samuel
>
>     On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 8:10 PM, Mike Jones
>     <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com <mailto:Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>>
>     wrote:
>
>         Thanks for your thoughts, Vladimir.  I’m increasingly inclined
>         to accept your suggestion to change the title from “OAuth 2.0
>         Discovery” to “OAuth 2.0 Authorization Server Discovery”.
>         While the abstract already makes it clear that the scope of
>         the document is AS discovery, doing so in the title seems like
>         it could help clarify things, given that a lot of the
>         discussion seems to be about resource discovery, which is out
>         of scope of the document.
>
>         I’m not saying that resource discovery isn’t important – it is
>         – but unlike authorization server discovery, where there’s
>         lots of existing practice, including using the existing data
>         format for describing OAuth implementations that aren’t being
>         used with OpenID Connect, there’s no existing practice to
>         standardize for resource discovery. The time to create a
>         standard for that seems to be after existing practice has
>         emerged.  It **might** or might not use new metadata values in
>         the AS discovery document, but that’s still to be determined. 
>         The one reason to leave the title as-is is that resource
>         discovery might end up involving extensions to this metadata
>         format in some cases.
>
>         I think an analogy to the core OAuth documents RFC 6749 and
>         RFC 6750 applies.  6749 is about the AS. 6750 is about the
>         RS.  The discovery document is about the AS.  We don’t yet
>         have a specification or existing practice for RS discovery,
>         which would be the 6750 analogy.
>
>         In summary, which title do people prefer?
>
>         ·“OAuth 2.0 Discovery”
>
>         ·“OAuth 2.0 Authorization Server Discovery”
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth