To some extent we want the server to have the flexibility it needs. If the server knows it is going to need client_id for GET it needs to encode it in the resource URI ether as part of the path or as a query parameter (that is up to the server)
When doing updates the client MUST include the client_id as an additional integrity check. Some servers may switch on that but that is up to them. If we want incremental replace (not resetting claims not sent to there defaults) then we need POST for update. I think if you want to do the REST thing and be pure about PUT it needs to reset all values not sent to there defaults. I suppose we could have both but two ways of doing it leads to confusion. John B. On 2013-02-12, at 11:52 AM, Justin Richer <jric...@mitre.org> wrote: > The problem that I have with "always including the client_id" is *where* to > include it. Are we talking a query parameter, URI template, or somewhere in > the request body? The latter will only work for POST and PUT, so it's out of > the question to support GET and DELETE using that semantic. I think we should > support all operations using parallel syntax -- that's just good API design. > > I *really* don't like the idea of switching the action solely based on > whether or not the client_id is present in the request body of a POST. This > is a side-effectful mode switch, and it will only lead to pain and misery. > Additionally, if the input is JSON (separate discussion), then a server would > have to parse the JSON body before knowing where to route the request. In > most web development frameworks that I've used, this is impossible. A query > parameter or URL pattern, on the other hand, is doable. > > As it stands right now, a server is free to include the client_id in the > "update/management" URL that it returns as part of the _link structure > (separate discussion). The current text goes as far as recommending that > practice, but doesn't take the step of requiring it in any form, and leaving > it up to the server to decide what form it takes. If a server can route > better with a query parameter, it'll return a URL to the client that has a > client_id= query parameter. If a server would rather use a path component > with the client_id, it can do that, too. If it wants to put everything on one > URL and differentiate through the request body or presence/absence of the > registration_access_token, it can always return the same URL to every client. > I think that's nuts, but you can do it. Interoperability is preserved because > the client simply follows the returned URL to do its bits and pieces, and it > doesn't ever have to create or compose this URL from component parts. > > I want to continue to distinguish between the POST and PUT operations for > create and update, respectively. This is a common pattern and the one > described in the original REST thesis that described the architectural style. > I'll also bring up that the semantics of PUT are intended to be "replace > all", which is what you had originally argued for in the update case as well. > I not convinced that developers of today can't handle HTTP verbs like PUT if > they want to do fancier operations like updates. Note that the core > operations, create and read, remain as POST and GET, which would be well > within the grasp of every library and web developer today. > > -- Justin > > On 02/12/2013 02:23 AM, Torsten Lodderstedt wrote: >> +1 for always including the client_id >> >> As John pointed out, there could be different entities updating client data. >> Then one has to distinguish the resource and the credential. >> >> Am 12.02.2013 um 02:51 schrieb John Bradley <ve7...@ve7jtb.com>: >> >>> I would always include the client_id on update. >>> >>> I think it is also us full to have other tokens used at the update >>> endpoint. I can see the master token used to update all the clients it has >>> registered as part of API management. >>> Relying on the registration_access_token is probably a design that will >>> cause trouble down the road. >>> >>> I think GET and POST are relatively clear. I don't know about expelling >>> PUT to developers. I think POST with a client_id to a (separate >>> discussion) update_uri works without restricting it to PUT. >>> >>> I think DELETE needs to be better understood. I think a status that can >>> be set for client lifecycle is better than letting a client delete a entry. >>> In some cases there will be more than one instance of a client and letting >>> them know they have been turned off for a reason is better than making >>> there registration disappear. >>> So for the moment I would levee out DELETE. >>> >>> John B. >>> >>> On 2013-02-11, at 6:14 PM, Justin Richer <jric...@mitre.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Draft -05 of OAuth Dynamic Client Registration [1] defines several >>>> operations that the client can take on its behalf as part of the >>>> registration process. These boil down to the basic CRUD operations that >>>> you find in many APIs: Create, Read, Update, Delete. Draft -00 defined >>>> only the "Create" operation, draft -01 through -04 added the "Update" >>>> operation, switched using the "operation=" parameter. >>>> >>>> Following several suggestions to do so on the list, the -05 draft defines >>>> these operations in terms of a RESTful API for the client. Namely: >>>> >>>> - HTTP POST to registration endpoint => Create (register) a new client >>>> - HTTP PUT to update endpoint (with registration_access_token) => Update >>>> the registered information for this client >>>> - HTTP GET to update endpoint (with registration_access_token) => read the >>>> registered information for this client >>>> - HTTP DELETE to update endpoint (with registration_access_token) => >>>> Delete (unregister/de-provision) this client >>>> >>>> The two main issues at stake here are: the addition of the READ and DELETE >>>> methods, and the use of HTTP verbs following a RESTful design philosophy. >>>> >>>> Pro: >>>> - RESTful APIs (with HTTP verbs to differentiate functionality) are the >>>> norm today >>>> - Full lifecycle management is common and is going to be expected by many >>>> users of this protocol in the wild >>>> >>>> Cons: >>>> - Update semantics are still under debate (full replace? patch?) >>>> - Somewhat increased complexity on the server to support all operations >>>> - Client has to understand all HTTP verbs for full access (though plain >>>> registration is just POST) >>>> >>>> >>>> Alternatives include using an operational switch parameter (like the old >>>> drafts), defining separate endpoints for every action, or doing all >>>> operations on a single endpoint using verbs to switch. >>>> >>>> -- Justin >>>> >>>> [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-05 >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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
