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...@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
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
