Hi Torsten,
I guess I worry that trying to solve all the use cases that get pulled
in with dynamic client registration will take a long time. I've been
involved with both the UMA work and the OpenID Connect work regarding
dynamic client registration and some reasonable constraints and
expectations need to be set in order to reach consensus.
And what John said... since he beat my response:)
Thanks,
George
On 3/22/12 4:40 AM, Torsten Lodderstedt wrote:
Hi George,
I see two distinct areas of interoperability, which are Client-AS and
AS-RS. Dynamic client registration belongs to Client-AS whereas JWT &
AS-RS communication belong to the later area.
OAuth 2.0 currently (not fully) covers Client-AS and does not address
AS-RS. In my opinion, the WG should decide whether we first complete
Client-AS and address AS-RS later on or vice versa.
I'm in favour of completing Client-AS first and consider client
registration a major missing piece. Why? Because otherwise clients
cannot dynamically bind to any OAuth-AS at runtime but have to
pre-register (with any?) :-(.
regards,
Torsten.
Am 21.03.2012 21:50, schrieb George Fletcher:
+1 to JWT and AS-RS communication over dynamic registration
On 3/21/12 3:52 PM, John Bradley wrote:
I don't think dynamic registration completely removes the need for a public
client, that can't keep secrets.
While we did do dynamic client registration for Connect that is a more
constrained use case.
I would put JWT and AS-RS communication as higher priorities than dynamic
registration.
Partially because they are more self contained issues.
John B.
On 2012-03-21, at 4:35 PM, Torsten Lodderstedt wrote:
In my opinion, dynamic client registration would allow us to drop public client
thus simplifying the core spec.
regards,
Torsten.
Am 15.03.2012 16:00, schrieb Eran Hammer:
I believe most do, except for the dynamic client registration. I don't have strong
objections to it, but it is the least important and least defined / deployed
proposal on the list. The AS->RS work is probably simpler and more useful at
this point.
EH
-----Original Message-----
From:oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 4:47 AM
To: ext Blaine Cook; Hannes Tschofenig
Cc:oauth@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth WG Re-Chartering
Hi Blaine,
These are indeed good requirements you stated below.
When you look at the list of topics do you think that the proposed items
indeed fulfill them?
Ciao
Hannes
-----Original Message-----
From:oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of ext Blaine Cook
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 1:31 PM
To: Hannes Tschofenig
Cc:oauth@ietf.org WG
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth WG Re-Chartering
On 14 March 2012 20:21, Hannes Tschofenig
wrote:
So, here is a proposal:
[Editor's Note: New work for the group. 5 items maximum! ]
Aug. 2012 Submit 'Token Revocation' to the IESG for consideration
as a Proposed Standard
Nov. 2012 Submit 'JSON Web Token (JWT)' to the IESG for
consideration as a Proposed Standard
Nov. 2012 Submit 'JSON Web Token (JWT) Bearer Token Profiles for
OAuth 2.0' to the IESG for consideration
Jan. 2013 Submit 'OAuth Dynamic Client Registration Protocol' to
the IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard
Sep. 2012 Submit 'OAuth Use Cases' to the IESG for consideration
as an Informational RFC
This looks great to me.
I have serious concerns about feature-creep, and think that the OAuth
WG should strongly limit its purview to these issues. In general, I
think it prudent for this working group in particular to consider
standardisation of work only under the following criteria:
1. Proposals must have a direct relationship to the mechanism of OAuth
(and not, specifically, bound to an application-level protocol).
2. Proposals must have significant adoption in both enterprise and
startup environments.
3. Any proposal must be driven based on a consideration of the
different approaches, as adopted in the wild, and strive to be a
better synthesis of those approaches, not a means to an end.
These are the constraints with which I started the OAuth project, and
they're more relevant than ever. I'd hate to see OAuth fail in the end
because of a WS-*-like death by standards-pile-on.
b.
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
