Hi,
Thanks for the feedback,
On 19/08/13 17:09, Justin Richer wrote:
Both of those make sense to me, and it mimics what scope does today.
Namely, clients can usually register for a list of scopes that they want
access to, then at authorization time they ask for a particular set to
be approved
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
The reason I want to go over the cases is some seem to think uma and oidc are
all the use cases. As Justin points out they are very specific.
It doesn't seem like the dyn reg proposal is general enough to meet the wg
charter's intent. At least from what i recall of the discussion.
While i
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
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
