Re: [OAUTH-WG] Working Group Last Call on Dynamic Client Registration Documents

Mike Jones <> Sun, 06 April 2014 17:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB1F51A04AF for <>; Sun, 6 Apr 2014 10:45:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tegvR0lGkK65 for <>; Sun, 6 Apr 2014 10:45:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00BC41A03EA for <>; Sun, 6 Apr 2014 10:45:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.908.10; Sun, 6 Apr 2014 17:45:31 +0000
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.913.9 via Frontend Transport; Sun, 6 Apr 2014 17:45:31 +0000
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.918.6 via Frontend Transport; Sun, 6 Apr 2014 17:45:29 +0000
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0181.007; Sun, 6 Apr 2014 17:44:58 +0000
From: Mike Jones <>
To: Torsten Lodderstedt <>, Bill Mills <>
Thread-Topic: [OAUTH-WG] Working Group Last Call on Dynamic Client Registration Documents
Thread-Index: AQHPT+nITTIZxjtAw0axukyWMLHP/JsBqYwAgADqJoCAAXocgIAALomAgACjKcA=
Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2014 17:44:57 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739439A148D31TK5EX14MBXC286r_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-EOPAttributedMessage: 0
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:; CTRY:US; IPV:CAL; IPV:NLI; EFV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009001)(438001)(189002)(199002)(377454003)(53754006)(24454002)(87266001)(49866001)(2656002)(86362001)(87936001)(94316002)(85306002)(93516002)(90146001)(47736001)(97186001)(92726001)(54356001)(47976001)(74662001)(31966008)(69226001)(19300405004)(85852003)(92566001)(79102001)(74502001)(55846006)(6806004)(224303002)(80976001)(224313003)(53806001)(50986001)(97336001)(59766001)(16236675002)(84326002)(95666003)(20776003)(94946001)(2009001)(74706001)(56816005)(33656001)(95416001)(93136001)(47446002)(83072002)(81342001)(81542001)(15975445006)(76786001)(19580395003)(54316002)(98676001)(77096001)(83322001)(81686001)(76796001)(81816001)(74366001)(76482001)(74876001)(99396002)(84676001)(63696002)(4396001)(66066001)(46102001)(19580405001)(77982001)(512874002)(65816001)(15202345003)(97736001)(71186001)(80022001)(56776001)(44976005); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:BLUPR03MB439;; FPR:3CA6F1F7.CF2D3ED.33F93FF7.48C352C8.2033D; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoDomainNonexistent; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
X-O365ENT-EOP-Header: Message processed by - O365_ENT: Allow from ranges (Engineering ONLY)
X-Forefront-PRVS: 0173C6D4D5
Received-SPF: Pass (: domain of designates as permitted sender) receiver=; client-ip=;;
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Working Group Last Call on Dynamic Client Registration Documents
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2014 17:45:42 -0000

As a point of clarity, OpenID Connect does not mandate support for dynamic registration in all cases.  In static profiles with a pre-established set of identity providers, it isn’t required.  It *is* required in the dynamic profile, in which clients can use identity providers that they have no pre-existing relationship with.

                                                            -- Mike

From: OAuth [] On Behalf Of Torsten Lodderstedt
Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2014 12:59 AM
To: Bill Mills
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Working Group Last Call on Dynamic Client Registration Documents

I think it is at the discretion of the actual deployment whether clients may dynamically register or not (meaning they need to go through some oob mechanism). Protocols utilizing OAuth could make it part of their mandatory to implement features - in the same way OIDC does.

Best regards,
Am 06.04.2014 um 07:12 schrieb Bill Mills <<>>:
To me the fundamental question of whether a client has to be registered in each place it is used is quite significant.  We don't address the problem and have not discussed it enough.

On Friday, April 4, 2014 11:39 PM, Torsten Lodderstedt <<>> wrote:
Hi Bill,

which scalability problem are you referring to? As far as I remember there were issues around the management API but not the core protocol.


Am 04.04.2014 um 18:41 schrieb Bill Mills <<>>:
Given the fundamental scalability problem we discussed in London do we really feel we're ready?
On Friday, April 4, 2014 3:07 AM, Hannes Tschofenig <<>> wrote:
Hi all,

This is a Last Call for comments on the dynamic client registration

* OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Client Registration Core Protocol

* OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Client Registration Metadata

Since we have to do the last call for these two documents together we
are setting the call for **3 weeks**.

Please have your comments in no later than April 25th.

Hannes & Derek

OAuth mailing list<>

OAuth mailing list<>