Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-09.txt

2013-04-01 Thread Justin Richer
I think that text is a viable solution -- we didn't want the "ghost client" situation to be 404 for security reasons (to keep people from poking around the registration endpoint). I don't think it's going to happen in practice, but I think it's important to be clear on what to do in this situat

Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-09.txt

2013-04-01 Thread nov matake
[Current] If the client does not exist on this server, the server MUST return an HTTP 403 Forbidden. [Proposed] If the client does not exist on this server, the server treat the given token as invalid and MUST return HTTP 401 Unauthorized as described in RFC 6750 Section 3.1. On 2013/04/02, at

Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-09.txt

2013-04-01 Thread nov matake
Thanks for your clarification. After reading the editor's note in draft06, I felt 401 is more natural than 403. (assuming you don't want to use 404 for security reason) The editor's note is enough detail for the reason of using 401. Using 403, it's like "the token is valid, but the ghost client

Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-09.txt

2013-04-01 Thread Justin Richer
If the access token isn't valid, then the intent is that the server return whatever is a valid response from OAuth, which as I recall is practically any 400 class error. This behavior for DynReg is outlined in section 5.2 of draft -09. In your case, since you're actually failing on the bad tok

Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-09.txt

2013-03-29 Thread nov matake
oops sorry, not draft07, but draft06. On 2013/03/30, at 12:55, nov matake wrote: > Hi Justin, > > I read the latest draft and found endpoints described in the spec returns 403 > in "no such clients" case. > I also read the draft07's editor note below, so I can understand the > situation. > >

Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-09.txt

2013-03-29 Thread nov matake
Hi Justin, I read the latest draft and found endpoints described in the spec returns 403 in "no such clients" case. I also read the draft07's editor note below, so I can understand the situation. [[ Editor's note: If the client doesn't exist, then the Refresh Access Token shouldn't be valid, mak

Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-09.txt

2013-03-29 Thread Justin Richer
New dynamic registration draft is published. Biggest changes here are the internationalization/localization capabilities that are now applicable to human-readable client metadata fields. -- Justin On 03/29/2013 04:38 PM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote: A New Internet-Draft is available from

[OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-09.txt

2013-03-29 Thread internet-drafts
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 2.0 Dynamic Client Registration Protocol Author(s) : Justin Richer