Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed Syntax Changes in Dynamic Registration

Authorization Framework). From: Anthony Nadalin [mailto:tony...@microsoft.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 3:48 PM To: Phil Hunt Cc: oauth@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed Syntax Changes in Dynamic Registration My mistake, was to say, We already have OpenID Connect doing dynamic

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed Syntax Changes in Dynamic Registration

-adam *From:*oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Justin Richer *Sent:* Wednesday, May 22, 2013 1:20 PM *To:* oauth@ietf.org *Subject:* Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed Syntax Changes in Dynamic Registration Speaking as an implementor, I'm actually in favor of changi

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed Syntax Changes in Dynamic Registration

hat's what the last call is for after all. -adam From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Justin Richer Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 1:20 PM To: oauth@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed Syntax Changes in Dynamic Registration Speaking as an i

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed Syntax Changes in Dynamic Registration

I'm OK with changing expires_at and issued_at while keeping token_endpoint_auth_method the same. From: Roland Hedberg To: Phil Hunt Cc: "oauth@ietf.org" Sent: Thu, May 23, 2013 7:28:22 AM Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed Syntax Cha

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed Syntax Changes in Dynamic Registration

As an implementor like Justin, I see no problem with changing "expires_at" and "issued_at" to the values proposed below. It's a minor code change and I don't have a large deployment to deal with. I also agree with Justin and Phil about "token_endpoint_auth_method". 22 maj 2013 kl. 20:34 skrev Ph

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed Syntax Changes in Dynamic Registration

nto OAuth. *From:*Justin Richer [mailto:jric...@mitre.org] *Sent:* Wednesday, May 22, 2013 1:35 PM *To:* Anthony Nadalin *Cc:* Phil Hunt; oauth@ietf.org <mailto:oauth@ietf.org> *Subject:* Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed Syntax Changes in Dynamic Registration I'm no

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed Syntax Changes in Dynamic Registration

e.org] Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 1:35 PM To: Anthony Nadalin Cc: Phil Hunt; oauth@ietf.org<mailto:oauth@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed Syntax Changes in Dynamic Registration I'm not sure why you don't think it's in scope, it's in the working group'

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed Syntax Changes in Dynamic Registration

] > Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 1:35 PM > To: Anthony Nadalin > Cc: Phil Hunt; oauth@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed Syntax Changes in Dynamic Registration > > I'm not sure why you don't think it's in scope, it's in the working group's > char

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed Syntax Changes in Dynamic Registration

[mailto:jric...@mitre.org] Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 1:35 PM To: Anthony Nadalin Cc: Phil Hunt; oauth@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed Syntax Changes in Dynamic Registration I'm not sure why you don't think it's in scope, it's in the working group's charte

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed Syntax Changes in Dynamic Registration

:jric...@mitre.org] *Sent:* Monday, May 20, 2013 11:10 AM *To:* Anthony Nadalin *Cc:* Phil Hunt; oauth@ietf.org *Subject:* Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed Syntax Changes in Dynamic Registration Tony, can you be more specific? What needs to be changed in your opinion? What text changes would you suggest?

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed Syntax Changes in Dynamic Registration

[mailto:jric...@mitre.org] Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 11:10 AM To: Anthony Nadalin Cc: Phil Hunt; oauth@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed Syntax Changes in Dynamic Registration Tony, can you be more specific? What needs to be changed in your opinion? What text changes would you suggest

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed Syntax Changes in Dynamic Registration

+1 I also agree with Justin's comment on token_endpoint_auth_method. Never-the-less, I did want to pass along the feedback that some were confused. The expires_at, issued_at thing though is particularly confusing (though the text may be clear) and is a higher priority issue in my opinion. Phil

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed Syntax Changes in Dynamic Registration

Mike From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Justin Richer Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 11:20 AM To: oauth@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed Syntax Changes in Dynamic Registration Speaking as an implementor, I'm actually in favor of changing &qu

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed Syntax Changes in Dynamic Registration

Speaking as an implementor, I'm actually in favor of changing "expires_at" and "issued_at" to the values proposed below. It would require some minor code changes on my end, but the impact would be minimal, and I think that the new names are *much* more clear to new developers. I think it will s

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed Syntax Changes in Dynamic Registration

>> To: "oauth@ietf.org<mailto:oauth@ietf.org>" mailto:oauth@ietf.org>> Sent: Mon, May 20, 2013 8:10:13 AM Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed Syntax Changes in Dynamic Registration Phil Hunt's review of the Dynamic Registration specification has raised a couple

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed Syntax Changes in Dynamic Registration

s exactly what we should be striving for, and the evidence >>> says that we’ve achieved that. >>> >>> It’s time to ship it! >>> >>> -- Mike >>> >>> From: oauth-boun...@

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed Syntax Changes in Dynamic Registration

+1 On 2013/05/21, at 5:23, Edmund Jay wrote: > +1 for keeping names as is. > > From: Justin Richer > To: "oauth@ietf.org" > Sent: Mon, May 20, 2013 8:10:13 AM > Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed Syntax Changes in Dynamic Registration > > Phil Hunt&#x

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed Syntax Changes in Dynamic Registration

+1 for keeping names as is. From: Justin Richer To: "oauth@ietf.org" Sent: Mon, May 20, 2013 8:10:13 AM Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed Syntax Changes in Dynamic Registration Phil Hunt's review of the Dynamic Registration specification has r

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed Syntax Changes in Dynamic Registration

No change please. =nat via iPhone On May 20, 2013, at 17:10, Justin Richer wrote: Phil Hunt's review of the Dynamic Registration specification has raised a couple of issues that I felt were getting buried by the larger discussion (which I still strongly encourage others to jump in to). Namely,

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed Syntax Changes in Dynamic Registration

un...@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Justin Richer *Sent:* Monday, May 20, 2013 9:42 AM *To:* Phil Hunt *Cc:* oauth@ietf.org <mailto:oauth@ietf.org> *Subject:* Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed Syntax Changes in Dynamic Registration I, of course, disagree. But that's what we're trying to figure out as

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed Syntax Changes in Dynamic Registration

ike >> >> From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of >> Justin Richer >> Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 9:42 AM >> To: Phil Hunt >> Cc: oauth@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed Syntax Changes in Dynamic Registration >&

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed Syntax Changes in Dynamic Registration

Agree From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Phil Hunt Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 9:42 AM To: Justin Richer Cc: oauth@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed Syntax Changes in Dynamic Registration This draft isn't ready for LC. Phil On 2013-05-20, at

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed Syntax Changes in Dynamic Registration

, 2013 9:42 AM *To:* Justin Richer *Cc:* oauth@ietf.org *Subject:* Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed Syntax Changes in Dynamic Registration This draft isn't ready for LC. Phil On 2013-05-20, at 8:49, Justin Richer <mailto:jric...@mitre.org>> wrote: But also keep in mind that this is last-

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed Syntax Changes in Dynamic Registration

f.org] *On Behalf Of *Justin Richer *Sent:* Monday, May 20, 2013 9:42 AM *To:* Phil Hunt *Cc:* oauth@ietf.org <mailto:oauth@ietf.org> *Subject:* Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed Syntax Changes in Dynamic Registration I, of course, disagree. But that's what we're trying to figure out as a

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed Syntax Changes in Dynamic Registration

On Behalf Of > Justin Richer > Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 9:42 AM > To: Phil Hunt > Cc: oauth@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed Syntax Changes in Dynamic Registration > > I, of course, disagree. But that's what we're trying to figure out as a > working

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed Syntax Changes in Dynamic Registration

change is especially superfluous. -- Mike *From:*oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Phil Hunt *Sent:* Monday, May 20, 2013 8:21 AM *To:* Justin Richer *Cc:* oauth@ietf.org *Subject:* Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed Syntax Changes in Dynamic Registration Keep in mind there

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed Syntax Changes in Dynamic Registration

: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed Syntax Changes in Dynamic Registration Keep in mind there may be other changes coming. The issue is that new developers can't figure out what token is being referred to. Phil On 2013-05-20, at 8:09, Justin Richer mailto:jric...@mitre.org>> wrote: Phil Hunt'

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed Syntax Changes in Dynamic Registration

! -- Mike From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Justin Richer Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 9:42 AM To: Phil Hunt Cc: oauth@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed Syntax Changes in Dynamic Registration I, of course, disagree

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed Syntax Changes in Dynamic Registration

I, of course, disagree. But that's what we're trying to figure out as a working group, after all. -- Justin On 05/20/2013 12:41 PM, Phil Hunt wrote: This draft isn't ready for LC. Phil On 2013-05-20, at 8:49, Justin Richer > wrote: But also keep in mind that this

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed Syntax Changes in Dynamic Registration

This draft isn't ready for LC. Phil On 2013-05-20, at 8:49, Justin Richer wrote: > But also keep in mind that this is last-call, and that we don't really want > to encourage avoidable drastic changes at this stage. > > -- Justin > > > On 05/20/2013 11:21 AM, Phil Hunt wrote: >> Keep in m

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed Syntax Changes in Dynamic Registration

36 Phone: (949) 636-8571 Email: donald.cof...@reminetworks.com From: Justin Richer [mailto:jric...@mitre.org] Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 8:09 AM To: oauth@ietf.org Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed Syntax Changes in Dynamic Registration Phil Hunt's review of the Dynamic Regi

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed Syntax Changes in Dynamic Registration

But also keep in mind that this is last-call, and that we don't really want to encourage avoidable drastic changes at this stage. -- Justin On 05/20/2013 11:21 AM, Phil Hunt wrote: Keep in mind there may be other changes coming. The issue is that new developers can't figure out what token i

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed Syntax Changes in Dynamic Registration

Keep in mind there may be other changes coming. The issue is that new developers can't figure out what token is being referred to. Phil On 2013-05-20, at 8:09, Justin Richer wrote: > Phil Hunt's review of the Dynamic Registration specification has raised a > couple of issues that I felt we

[OAUTH-WG] Proposed Syntax Changes in Dynamic Registration

Phil Hunt's review of the Dynamic Registration specification has raised a couple of issues that I felt were getting buried by the larger discussion (which I still strongly encourage others to jump in to). Namely, Phil has suggested a couple of syntax changes to the names of several parameters.