WFM. An updated I-D without it would be great. EH
> -----Original Message----- > From: Torsten Lodderstedt [mailto:tors...@lodderstedt.net] > Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 12:57 PM > To: Eran Hammer > Cc: Hannes Tschofenig; oauth@ietf.org WG > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Dynamic Client Registration > > 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:tors...@lodderstedt.net] > >> Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 12:50 PM > >> To: Eran Hammer > >> Cc: Hannes Tschofenig; oauth@ietf.org 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:hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net] > >>>> Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2012 9:01 AM > >>>> To: Eran Hammer > >>>> Cc: Hannes Tschofenig; oauth@ietf.org 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: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On > >>>>>> Behalf Of Hannes Tschofenig > >>>>>> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 7:36 AM > >>>>>> To: oauth@ietf.org 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 > >>>>>> OAuth@ietf.org > >>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> OAuth mailing list > >>> OAuth@ietf.org > >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
