I put it back because otherwise, we wouldn't be meeting one of the requirements 
of the RFC 6749.  If you look at the client registration section 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6749#section-2, you'll see that registering 
redirect_uri values is required, as is registering the client type.  Without 
this, there wasn't a way to register the client type.



                                                            -- Mike



-----Original Message-----
From: OAuth [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John Bradley
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2014 12:37 PM
To: Phil Hunt
Cc: oauth@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Dynamic Client Registration: application_type



It was taken out and then put back in as it is a common parameter used by a 
number of AS.



We have it in Connect, the best reason for keeping it is to stop people from 
coming up with a new parameter for the same thing because they haven't looked 
at the Connect version.



John B.

On Jul 8, 2014, at 3:16 PM, Phil Hunt 
<phil.h...@oracle.com<mailto:phil.h...@oracle.com>> wrote:



> Does this need to be in the spec?  I believe we've already said that others 
> can add attributes as they need.

>

> Phil

>

> @independentid

> www.independentid.com<http://www.independentid.com>

> phil.h...@oracle.com<mailto:phil.h...@oracle.com>

>

>

>

> On Jul 8, 2014, at 11:56 AM, John Bradley 
> <ve7...@ve7jtb.com<mailto:ve7...@ve7jtb.com>> wrote:

>

>> The application_type is collected as part of current registration by Google 
>> and some other OAuth providers as part of registering redirect uri.

>>

>> The text was cut down to allow more flexibility in OAuth.  Connect requires 
>> registration of redirect_uri and is more ridged about it than OAuth 2.

>>

>> Do you think the Connect wording would be appropriate for OAuth?

>>

>> John B.

>>

>> On Jul 8, 2014, at 9:22 AM, Hannes Tschofenig 
>> <hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net<mailto:hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net>> wrote:

>>

>>> This additional information makes a lot of sense.

>>>

>>> As you said in an earlier mail, the attempt to copy text from the

>>> OpenID Connect spec failed a bit...

>>>

>>> On 07/08/2014 02:49 PM, Nat Sakimura wrote:

>>>> I suppose authors has imported one of the security feature of

>>>> OpenID Connect here as well. In the Dynamic Client Registration

>>>> standard, which is a bit longer than IETF version. You can see the reason 
>>>> from it:

>>>>

>>>> application_type

>>>>  OPTIONAL. Kind of the application. The default, if omitted, is web.

>>>>  The defined values are native or web. Web Clients using the OAuth

>>>> Implicit Grant Type MUST only register URLs using the https scheme

>>>> as redirect_uris; they MUST NOT use localhost as the hostname.

>>>>  Native Clients MUST only register redirect_uris using custom URI

>>>> schemes or URLs using the http: scheme with localhost as the

>>>> hostname. Authorization Servers MAY place additional constraints on

>>>> Native Clients. Authorization Servers MAY reject Redirection URI

>>>> values using the http scheme, other than the localhost case for

>>>> Native Clients. The Authorization Server MUST verify that all the

>>>> registered redirect_uris conform to these constraints. This

>>>> prevents  sharing a Client ID across different types of Clients.

>>>>

>>>> Regards,

>>>>

>>>> Nat

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> 2014-07-08 21:17 GMT+09:00 Hannes Tschofenig

>>>> <hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net

>>>> <mailto:hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net>>:

>>>>

>>>>  Hi all,

>>>>

>>>>  with version -18 you guys have added a new meta-data attribute,

>>>> namely  application_type.

>>>>

>>>>  First, this new attribute is not listed in the IANA consideration

>>>> section.

>>>>

>>>>  Second, could you provide a bit of motivation why you need it?

>>>> What  would the authorization server do with that type of

>>>> information? The  description is rather short.

>>>>

>>>>  IMHO there is also no clear boundary between a "native" and "web" app.

>>>>  Just think about smart phone apps that are developed using JavaScript.

>>>>  Would this be a web app or a native app?

>>>>

>>>>  Here is the definition from the draft:

>>>>

>>>>  application_type

>>>>        OPTIONAL.  Kind of the application.  The default, if omitted, is

>>>>        "web".  The defined values are "native" or "web".

>>>>

>>>>  Ciao

>>>>  Hannes

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>  _______________________________________________

>>>>  OAuth mailing list

>>>>  OAuth@ietf.org<mailto:OAuth@ietf.org> <mailto:OAuth@ietf.org>

>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> --

>>>> Nat Sakimura (=nat)

>>>> Chairman, OpenID Foundation

>>>> http://nat.sakimura.org/

>>>> @_nat_en

>>>

>>> _______________________________________________

>>> OAuth mailing list

>>> OAuth@ietf.org<mailto:OAuth@ietf.org>

>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

>>

>> _______________________________________________

>> OAuth mailing list

>> OAuth@ietf.org<mailto:OAuth@ietf.org>

>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

>



_______________________________________________

OAuth mailing list

OAuth@ietf.org<mailto:OAuth@ietf.org>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

Reply via email to