Where did I say I'm not interested in this work?! All I was saying is that it would be better to postpone it until the discovery layer, which this draft clearly relies upon, is a bit clearer. I would be satisfied with a simple note stating that if the discovery work at the APP area isn't complete, the WG may choose to delay work on this document until ready.
EH > -----Original Message----- > From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2012 9:01 AM > To: Eran Hammer > Cc: Hannes Tschofenig; [email protected] WG > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Dynamic Client Registration > > Hi Eran, > > you are saying that you are not interested in the dynamic client registration > work and that's OK. There are, however, a couple of other folks in the group > who had expressed interest to work on it, to review and to implement it. > > Note also that the discovery and the dynamic client registration is different > from each other; there is a relationship but they are nevertheless different. > > Ciao > Hannes > > PS: Moving the Simple Web Discovery to the Apps area working group does > not mean that it will not be done. On the contrary there will be work happing > and we are just trying to figure out what the difference between SWD and > WebFinger is. > > On Apr 15, 2012, at 9:14 AM, Eran Hammer wrote: > > > I'd like to see 'Dynamic Client Registration' removed from the charter along > with SWD for the sole reason that figuring out a generic discovery mechanism > is going to take some time and this WG has enough other work to focus on > while that happens elsewhere. I expect this to come back in the next round > with much more deployment experience and discovery clarity. > > > > EH > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > >> Behalf Of Hannes Tschofenig > >> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 7:36 AM > >> To: [email protected] WG > >> Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Dynamic Client Registration > >> > >> Hi all, > >> > >> at the IETF#83 OAuth working group meeting we had some confusion > >> about the Dynamic Client Registration and the Simple Web Discovery > >> item. I just listened to the audio recording again. > >> > >> With the ongoing mailing list discussion regarding WebFinger vs. > >> Simple Web Discovery I hope that folks had a chance to look at the > >> documents again and so the confusion of some got resolved. > >> > >> I believe the proposed new charter item is sufficiently clear with > >> regard to the scope of the work. Right? > >> Here is the item again: > >> " > >> Jul. 2013 Submit 'OAuth Dynamic Client Registration Protocol' to the > >> IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard > >> > >> [Starting point for the work will be > >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hardjono-oauth-dynreg > >> ] > >> " > >> > >> Of course there there is a relationship between Simple Web Discovery > >> (or > >> WebFinger) and the dynamic client registration since the client first > >> needs to discover the client registration endpoint at the > >> authorization server before interacting with it. > >> > >> Now, one thing that just came to my mind when looking again at draft- > >> hardjono-oauth-dynreq was the following: Could the Client > >> Registration Request and Response protocol exchange could become a > >> profile of the SCIM protocol? In some sense this exchange is nothing > >> else than provisioning an account at the Authorization Server (along with > some meta-data). > >> > >> Is this too far fetched? > >> > >> Ciao > >> Hannes > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> OAuth mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
