Re: [OAUTH-WG] RFC 7592

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
>
>
>

Re: [OAUTH-WG] RFC 7592 - Client Update Request omitted fields