Generally speaking, mapping PUT to replace and POST to change is an acceptable practice so I am fine with it.
Now, what I still do not understand is why you think it is fine to do PUT or POST and not DELETE. Doing PUT with empty content is almost the same as DELETE. Could you explain? =nat via iPhone Feb 14, 2013 0:10、John Bradley <ve7...@ve7jtb.com> のメッセージ: > I am not violently opposed to PUT as a option that completely replaces the > resource setting all unsent claims back to the defaults. > > I don't have a good feeling about DELETE, I think we still need more > discussion on what it means, what privileges it takes to invoke it etc. > It could be a bad thing if we get wrong or is not implemented consistently. > > Personally I don't think a client should ever be able to DELETE it's record. > > I think marking a client_id as pending provisioning, suspended, revoked etc > is better and that can be done with a claim in the update endpoint. > > It should only be the server that deletes a record after satisfying it's > audit requirements. > > John B. > > On 2013-02-13, at 12:00 PM, Justin Richer <jric...@mitre.org> wrote: > >> Would it be reasonable to mark the PUT and DELETE methods as optional for >> the server to implement, but with defined semantics if they do? I want to >> keep GET and POST(create) as mandatory, as I think that's the minimal set of >> functionality required. >> >> -- Justin >> >> On 02/11/2013 08:51 PM, John Bradley wrote: >>> 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
