Re: [OAUTH-WG] Dynamic Client Registration

[Igor Faynberg <[e-mail]>]

+1 for keeping registration and discovery separate.

(As is typical, Torsten had beaten me to saying just what I was thinking 
about and preparing to to say.  The only consolation is that he 
expressed it better than I would have.)

Igor

On 4/18/2012 3:56 PM, Torsten Lodderstedt wrote:
> Hi Eran,
>
> thanks for pointing this out. I took a quick look on the document. 
> Seems the I-D combines registration and discovery. I think both should 
> be kept separat. So I would suggest to remove section 5 and the 
> dependency is gone.
>
> regards,
> Torsten.
>
> Am 18.04.2012 21:51, schrieb Eran Hammer:
>> Because it is in the draft the WG is suppose to consider. It's a 
>> stated dependency.
>>
>> EH
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Torsten Lodderstedt [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 12:50 PM
>>> To: Eran Hammer
>>> Cc: Hannes Tschofenig; [e-mail] WG
>>> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Dynamic Client Registration
>>>
>>> Hi Eran,
>>>
>>> why do you see a relationship between dynamic client registration and
>>> discovery? Basically, we don't care so far how a client finds tokens 
>>> and end-
>>> user authorization point. Why is this any different for the client 
>>> registration
>>> endpoint (or the revocation endpoint)? Or do you have a bigger 
>>> picture in
>>> mind?
>>>
>>> regards,
>>> Torsten.
>>>
>>> Am 15.04.2012 22:36, schrieb Eran Hammer:
>>>> 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:[e-mail]]
>>>>> Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2012 9:01 AM
>>>>> To: Eran Hammer
>>>>> Cc: Hannes Tschofenig; [e-mail] 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: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
>>>>>>> Behalf Of Hannes Tschofenig
>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 7:36 AM
>>>>>>> To: [e-mail] 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
>>>>>>> [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