I thought of this during the merge process as well -- "associate" is a direct
import from OIDC. The reasoning behind this verb is that you're "associating" a
set of client metadata to a particular client identifier.
I'd be happy to change this term to "client_register" if there's consensus for
Quick question: Why is it “association request”, not “registration
request”? Nearly everywhere the term “association” appears, it seems like
you could insert “registration” and achieve better clarity. -T
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Richer, Justin P. wrote:
> This draft combines the best-usa
This draft combines the best-usable parts UMA and OpenID Connect dynamic
registration drafts into one document that's designed to facilitate dynamic
client registration. I've significantly reorganized the document and I've tried
to exorcise any obvious dependencies on OpenID Connect or UMA. This
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Web Authorization Protocol Working Group of
the IETF.
Title : OAuth Dynamic Client Registration Protocol
Author(s) : Justin Richer
