Sorry i see my message still isn't that clear. I am saying there is no requirement that a client directly obtain a client_id from the as service provider. It is merely an assumption that has been made by dyn reg based on typical use patterns to date.
It could be reasonable for a client to generate it's own guid or more likely, use an assertion signed by a party the service provider trusts. Phil On 2013-08-19, at 22:53, Phil Hunt <phil.h...@oracle.com> wrote: > See below > > Phil > > On 2013-08-19, at 22:34, Torsten Lodderstedt <tors...@lodderstedt.net> wrote: > >> Hi Phil, >> >> >> >> >>> The assumption that client id must be issued by the sp seems wrong to >>> me in many cases-- including oidc. 6749 does not make this restriction >>> at all. >> >> What do you mean? Grant type code requires a client_id in order to identify >> the client at the AS's authz endpoint. Based on this data, the AS chooses >> the authz policy and validates the redirect_uri. > > [ph] yes. But i am referring to the fact that the client does not have to > obtain it from the as. It merely has to present one that is accepted. > > Iow a federated assertion might solve the issue. >> >>> >>> Given this, a statement approach may be sufficient for many clients. No >>> need for long term credential mgmt or records. >> >> Perhaps for clients using the token endpoint only. > > [Ph] Actually I was also thinking of javascript clients. >> >> regards, >> Torsten. >> >>> >>> Phil >>> >>> On 2013-08-19, at 16:33, Eve Maler <e...@xmlgrrl.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi folks-- Just a reminder that the first draft the UMA group >>> submitted on May 1, 2011 contained extensive requirements and use cases >>> related to UMA's various needs for dynamic client registration: >>>> >>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hardjono-oauth-dynreg-00 >>>> >>>> When there was interest to pick up this draft as a WG work item, it >>> was recommended that we excise this content so that the doc wouldn't be >>> so specific to our particular usage of OAuth. >>>> >>>> I point this out just to show that the need for dynamic client >>> registration isn't limited to OpenID Connect, and that some specific >>> use cases have already been floated here. >>>> >>>> FWIW, >>>> >>>> Eve >>>> >>>> On 19 Aug 2013, at 8:31 AM, Justin Richer <jric...@mitre.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> All of this is a good argument to do both, which is what I've been >>> saying all along. >>>>> >>>>> -- Justin >>>>> >>>>> On 08/19/2013 11:33 AM, Phil Hunt wrote: >>>>>> I do not recall agreement in charter discussions to solving a >>> specific case. >>>>>> >>>>>> I recall more than one in the re-chartering discussion said dyn reg >>> needed major changes to solve their use cases. >>>>>> >>>>>> Phil >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2013-08-19, at 8:18, Justin Richer <jric...@mitre.org> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Tony, I completely disagree. The proposals that I've seen have >>> different means and different end states, and they make different >>> assumptions about the relationship between entities and the >>> capabilities of all players. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- Justin >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 08/19/2013 11:15 AM, Anthony Nadalin wrote: >>>>>>>> There are proposals out there that are trying to solve the same >>> problem, but in different ways, so I would not say that they are trying >>> to solve different use cases. I do think that we need to make sure that >>> whatever proposal we select it needs to have a wide range of use cases >>> it solves, not just a single use case as the more solutions this group >>> produces the more confused folks will be >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>> From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On >>> Behalf Of Justin Richer >>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 7:27 AM >>>>>>>> To: Phil Hunt >>>>>>>> Cc: oauth mailing list >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Dynamic Client Registration Conference >>> Call: Thu 22 Aug, 2pm PDT >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I agree that dynamic registration isn't needed to solve *all* of >>> the different use cases. It solves its set of specific problems (and >>> does so well, if you ask me), but there are and will always be things >>> that it won't work for, and that's fine. That's why I've suggested >>> under a separate thread that the other drafts go forward separately and >>> that DynReg not be hung up on them. We're fundamentally solving >>> different use cases, and there is no magic solution that will solve all >>> the problems at once. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- Justin >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 08/18/2013 08:15 PM, Phil Hunt wrote: >>>>>>>>> I think we should start by reviewing use cases taxonomy. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Then a discussion on any client_id assumptions and actual >>> requirements for each client case. Why is registration needed for each >>> case? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The statement can solve some complication but should be put in >>> context of use cases. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Phil >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 2013-08-18, at 15:01, Hannes Tschofenig >>> <hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>>>>>>>>> Hash: SHA512 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>>>>>>>>> Hash: SHA512 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Based on your feedback via the poll let us start with August >>> 22nd with the first conference call. I will distribute the conference >>> call details on Tuesday. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Let us talk about the agenda. There were several items brought >>> up in >>>>>>>>>> discussions, namely >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> * Software assertions / software statements >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> We briefly discussed this topic at the IETF OAuth session but >>> we may need more time to understand the implications for the current >>> dynamic client registration document: >>> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/87/slides/slides-87-oauth-2.pptx >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> * SCIM vs. current dynamic client registration approach for >>>>>>>>>> interacting with the client configuration endpoint >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In the past we said that it would be fine to have a profile >>> defined in SCIM to provide the dynamic client registration for those >>> who implement SCIM and want to manage clients also using SCIM. It >>> might, however, be useful to compare the two approaches in detail to >>> see what the differences are. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> * Interactions with the client registration endpoint >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Justin added some "life cycle" description to the document to >>> motivate some of the design decisions. Maybe we need to discuss those >>> in more detail and add further text. >>>>>>>>>> Additional text could come from the NIST Blue Button / Green >>> Button usage. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> * Aspects that allow servers to store less / no state >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - - From the discussions on the list it was not clear whether >>> this is actually accomplishable with the current version of OAuth. We >>> could explore this new requirement and try to get a better >>> understanding how much this relates to dynamic client registration and >>> to what extend it requires changes to the core spec. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What would you like to start with? Other topics you would like >>> to bring up? >>>>>>>>>> - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >>>>>>>>>> Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.19 (Darwin) >>>>>>>>>> Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org >>> iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJSEULvAAoJEGhJURNOOiAtttEH/Aogg8Q/R/L9/mzU05IQbnze >>> AdXB1ZvySkV3jZT4I5shmP7hQr6mc6P6UdvyOrSjrvPlBHen55/oa5z7Cwchd1dk >>> dcDUEavbodjnm9SrOs0nKaTvdeZimFSBkGMrfhoTYLXpymP24F9PZgwUXdOcFocF >>> OiCs3qDajYaA395DCg5+4mOLQQgDnmy4drlgj2NPv1nMBRDBubzgAhJccwF2BLN9 >>> IW7MAwTEu7vYT/gwIFzriPkui7gYpf8sAqsnzf/z7FtXbsP8imgOKUlQxzZzeSSP >>> QEb6+syyMD9Gt6wxQfWzyl5T0bYLP6DQ+ldZR8yGKCwb+2k3LN6Q8bIpj4mIERI= >>>>>>>>>> =tkGT >>>>>>>>>> - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >>>>>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >>>>>>>>>> Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.19 (Darwin) >>>>>>>>>> Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org >>> iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJSEUQfAAoJEGhJURNOOiAt8wkIAI3xgdsWuOB36KLiMLRUG+Zb >>> RvYqV+rOH80m7YVJcdOLjQJcpPqOIBdzq/yuNiAaF1uFJCqBn97ZQ/NLXLNGcg8x >>> wI/Laz7kP2U4B2trBTMtAf2wsY9uYw4Eh+eOEDKGF6cmkEzrzrlw4q/Sfu6vy181 >>> VI+kqwzZ+iYX4iL3NYPlkg3rwF4OZ1v3T08Erg2SPrbmNd1TRfJJU8HrYFEJQo1q >>> p0RiLjcFFDCEZs0gDr9zliCXllV7J9h2ttqLq8+xwPATDuO6buQdFS9vZQ8t1u36 >>> a0FIuy3NM8PQbblC3B5WumUjW4kntLV09ytYV8h6S8C/dgFwMqzAwEAeNx1exyE= >>>>>>>>>> =3qNI >>>>>>>>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> OAuth mailing list >>>>> OAuth@ietf.org >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >>>> >>>> >>>> Eve Maler >>> http://www.xmlgrrl.com/blog >>>> +1 425 345 6756 >>> http://www.twitter.com/xmlgrrl >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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
