Tim, as background, this came from the OpenID Connect specs, where we tried to
consistently use the convention that the locator for any resource that can be
retrieved from the specified location be called a URL, whereas any identifier
that may not be retrievable is called a URI. That was done as an aid to
developer understanding of the specifications.
If the use of "URL" is deprecated by the IETF in favor of always just using
"URI", I suppose we could change that, but if it's going to change, it should
be soon.
-- Mike
From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Nat
Sakimura
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 8:57 AM
To: Tim Bray
Cc: <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-06.txt
You are right. I am in the camp recommending the use of URL when it is a
concrete endpoint and URI when it includes something that is only abstract, but
since OAuth standardized on "uri", we may as well do so here.
Nat
2013/2/20 Tim Bray <twb...@google.com<mailto:twb...@google.com>>
In OAuth, we have redirect_uri not redirect_url; should this be
registration_access_uri for consistency? -T
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 8:23 AM, John Bradley
<ve7...@ve7jtb.com<mailto:ve7...@ve7jtb.com>> wrote:
I think registration_access_url is OK. I haven't heard any better names yet.
John B.
On 2013-02-20, at 1:04 PM, Mike Jones
<michael.jo...@microsoft.com<mailto:michael.jo...@microsoft.com>> wrote:
For what it's worth, the name "registration_access_url" was chosen to be
parallel to "registration_access_token". It's the place you use the access
token. And it's where you access an existing registration. I'm against the
name "client_metadata_url" because it's not metadata you're accessing - it's a
registration you're accessing. For the same reason, I don't think the name
"client_info_url" gives people the right idea, because it doesn't say anything
it being the registration that you're accessing.
If you really want us to change this, having read what's above, I could live
with "client_registration_url", but I don't think a change is actually
necessary. (But if we are going to change it, let's do it ASAP, before the
OpenID Connect Implementer's Drafts are published.)
-- Mike
From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org>
[mailto:oauth-<mailto:oauth->boun...@ietf.org<mailto:boun...@ietf.org>] On
Behalf Of Nat Sakimura
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 7:58 AM
To: <oauth@ietf.org<mailto:oauth@ietf.org>>; Richer, Justin P.; John Bradley
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-06.txt
Thanks Justin.
Even if we go flat rather than doing JSON Structure, the "Client
Registration Access Endpoint" is not a good representative name.
What it represents is the client metadata/info.
It is not representing "Client Registration Access".
What does "Client Registration Access" mean?
Does UPDATing "Cleint Registration Access" make sense?
Something in the line of "Client Metadata Endpoint" and
something like "client_metadata_url" or "client_info_url" is much better.
Nat
2013/2/15 Richer, Justin P. <jric...@mitre.org<mailto:jric...@mitre.org>>
Everyone, there's a new draft of DynReg up on the tracker. This draft tries to
codify the discussions so far from this week into something we can all read.
There are still plenty of open discussion points and items up for debate.
Please read through this latest draft and see what's changed and help assure
that it properly captures the conversations. If you have any inputs for the
marked [[ Editor's Note ]] sections, please send them to the list by next
Thursday to give me opportunity to get any necessary changes in by the cutoff
date of Monday the 22nd.
Thanks for all of your hard work everyone, I think this is *really* coming
along now.
-- Justin
On Feb 15, 2013, at 4:54 PM,
internet-dra...@ietf.org<mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org> wrote:
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Web Authorization Protocol Working Group of
> the IETF.
>
> Title : OAuth Dynamic Client Registration Protocol
> Author(s) : Justin Richer
> John Bradley
> Michael B. Jones
> Maciej Machulak
> Filename : draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-06.txt
> Pages : 21
> Date : 2013-02-15
>
> Abstract:
> This specification defines an endpoint and protocol for dynamic
> registration of OAuth Clients at an Authorization Server.
>
>
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg
>
> There's also a htmlized version available at:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-06
>
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-06
>
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org<mailto:OAuth@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org<mailto:OAuth@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
--
Nat Sakimura (=nat)
Chairman, OpenID Foundation
http://nat.sakimura.org/
@_nat_en
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org<mailto:OAuth@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org<mailto:OAuth@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
--
Nat Sakimura (=nat)
Chairman, OpenID Foundation
http://nat.sakimura.org/
@_nat_en
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
