I thought about this when doing the SCIM discovery document. Initially I only had cases for plain ./well-known. But I found there are two types of clients. I decided later that mobile and web apps have different needs.
E.g. a mobile app might ask anonymously or on behalf of an already authenticated subject. ./well-known works fine. A web app that works on behalf of multiple users (e.g. is an OIDC client), might find that the answer varies based on the user acnt it wants to ask on behalf of. The webfinger?rel=oauth&acnt:<someid> model works much better. Phil @independentid www.independentid.com <http://www.independentid.com/>phil.h...@oracle.com <mailto:phil.h...@oracle.com> > On Feb 4, 2016, at 4:34 PM, Justin Richer <jric...@mit.edu> wrote: > > +1, if we define a webfinger/rel at all. > > I would rather we just define the service discovery document, the thing that > lives under .well-known. > > — Justin > > >> On Feb 4, 2016, at 4:01 AM, Roland Hedberg <roland.hedb...@umu.se> wrote: >> >> +1 >> >>> 4 feb 2016 kl. 08:10 skrev Phil Hunt <phil.h...@oracle.com>: >>> >>> +1 for adoption. >>> >>> However I would like a rel value distinct from OpenID (see separate email). >>> While the mechanics of discovery is the same, I believe some clients will >>> want to distinguish between OAuth AS’s and OIDC OPs. Further, I would >>> expect over time that different discovery features may be required. Locking >>> them together seems like a pre-mature or rush choice. >>> >>> Phil >>> >>> @independentid >>> www.independentid.com >>> phil.h...@oracle.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Feb 3, 2016, at 10:44 PM, William Denniss <wdenn...@google.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> +1 for adoption of this document by the working group >>>> >>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 10:27 PM, Mike Jones <michael.jo...@microsoft.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> I support adoption of this document by the working group. I'll note that >>>> elements of this specification are already in production use by multiple >>>> parties. >>>> >>>> -- Mike >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: OAuth [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Hannes Tschofenig >>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2016 3:49 AM >>>> To: oauth@ietf.org >>>> Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Call for Adoption: OAuth 2.0 Discovery >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> this is the call for adoption of OAuth 2.0 Discovery, see >>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-oauth-discovery-00 >>>> >>>> Please let us know by Feb 2nd whether you accept / object to the adoption >>>> of this document as a starting point for work in the OAuth working group. >>>> >>>> Note: If you already stated your opinion at the IETF meeting in Yokohama >>>> then you don't need to re-state your opinion, if you want. >>>> >>>> The feedback at the Yokohama IETF meeting was the following: 19 for / zero >>>> against / 4 persons need more information. >>>> >>>> Ciao >>>> Hannes & Derek >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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
