On 12/02/13 14:43, Tim Bray wrote:
?! /foo and /foo/bar are obviously distinct endpoints.
definitely yes from the client's point of view, at the implementation level - it is the internal detail, right ?
Cheers, Sergey
On Feb 12, 2013 3:25 AM, "Sergey Beryozkin" <sberyoz...@gmail.com <mailto:sberyoz...@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi Mike, On 12/02/13 01:26, Mike Jones wrote: At most, there should be two endpoints - creation and management - for a client, but the protocol should be structured such that they *can* be at the same URL, if the server so chooses. A simple way to accomplish this is to require that the client_id value be provided as an input parameter on update operations. Then for implementations that use a single endpoint, they can distinguish "create" and "update" operations on the management endpoint by the presence or absence of the client_id value. Perhaps the text can be relaxed somehow to not refer to /register and /register/{client_id} as two different endpoints ? I think it is a single endpoint from the implementation point of view :-). Or may be the spec can indeed be relaxed a bit and allow for a PUT form payload be sent directly to /register Cheers, Sergey If you want to have separate endpoints and don't need the client_id because you have somehow encoded it into the management endpoint URL, that's fine. It still can serve as a useful cross-check that the client (or an attacker) is requesting a change to a client that matches the bearer token used. But including it is necessary for implementations that want to use a single registration endpoint, rather than having a proliferation of per-client endpoints. BTW, just for the record, OAuth 2.0 uses the same endpoint for initial access token requests and requests for refreshed access tokens - with the operations being distinguished by whether a refresh_token parameter is present. So there's a useful OAuth precedent for doing things this way. -- Mike -----Original Message----- From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org <mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org> [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org <mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org>__] On Behalf Of Justin Richer Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 1:15 PM To: oauth@ietf.org <mailto:oauth@ietf.org> Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Registration: Endpoint Definition (& operation parameter) Draft -05 of OAuth Dynamic Client Registration [1] defines three fundamental operations that a client can undertake: Client Registration, Client Update, and Secret Rotation. Each of these actions needs to be differentiated *somehow* by the client and server as part of the protocol. Draft -00 defined only the "register" operation, drafts -01 through -04 made use of an "operation" parameter on a single endpoint, which brought up a long discussion on the list on whether or not that was an appropriate design. Draft -05 did away with the definition of the "operation" parameter on a single endpoint and instead opted for separating the base functionality into three different endpoints. Pro: - Closer to RESTful semantics of having one URL for creation and another URL for management of an item (eg, most REST APIs use /object for creation and /object/object_id for manipulation) - The rest of OAuth (and its extensions) defines separate endpoints for different actions (Authorization, Token, Revocation, Introspection) as opposed to a single endpoint with a mode-switch parameter - Client doesn't have to generate a URL string for different endpoints by combining parameters with a base URL Con: - Not quite exactly RESTful as the spec doesn't dictate the client_id be part of the update or rotate URL (though and implementor's note suggests this) - Client has to track different URLs for different actions - Server must be able to differentiate actions based on these different URLs. Alternatives include using different HTTP verbs (see other thread) or defining an operational switch parameter, like older drafts, on a single endpoint URL. Another suggested alternative is to look for the presence of certain parameters, such as client_id or the registration access token, to indicate that a different operation is requested. There's also question of whether the Secret Rotation action needs to have its own endpoint, or if it can be collapsed into one of the others. It has been suggested off-list that the secret rotation should never be initiated by the Client but instead the client should simply request its latest secret from the server through the update (or read) semantics. -- Justin [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/__draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-05 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-05> _________________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org <mailto:OAuth@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/__listinfo/oauth <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth> _________________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org <mailto:OAuth@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/__listinfo/oauth <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth> _________________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org <mailto:OAuth@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/__listinfo/oauth <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
