Diffrent protocols like Connect and SCIM may have different configurations, endpoints , keys , authentication methods, scopes etc.
It should be posable to have them as one document, but forcing them to use one document is going to cause a explosion of claim registration for discovery. I think it is better for SCIM to register one well known than to have to register 20 claims with scim prefixes or something silly like that. Name-spacing the claims by allowing them to be in different well known files is not unreasonable. Remember some of these protocols may be hosted on SaaS so there is no guarantee that all protocols will have the same OAuth Config. Nothing stops a protocol from doing what it likes with webfinger if it wants to use that for discovery. In principal I like the idea of having another protocol as an example. My only concern is that I haven’t seen any discussion of your SCIM discovery document in the SCIM WG. I personally think sorting out discovery for SCIM is a good idea, but OAUTh is but one of several authentication methods for SCIM, and there are probably other non OAuth things that want to be described. I would feel better about using it as an example if it were adopted by the WG and some general interest shown. I encourage you to do that so we can use it as a example. John B. > On Feb 18, 2016, at 8:35 AM, Phil Hunt <[email protected]> wrote: > > I still find the following text objectionable and confusing… > By default, for historical reasons, unless an application-specific > well-known URI path suffix is registered and used for an application, > the client for that application SHOULD use the well-known URI path > suffix "openid-configuration" and publish the metadata document at > the path formed by concatenating "/.well-known/openid-configuration" > to the authorization server's issuer identifier. As described in > Section 5 > <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-discovery-01#section-5>, despite > the identifier > "/.well-known/openid-configuration", appearing to be OpenID-specific, > its usage in this specification is actually referring to a general > OAuth 2.0 feature that is not specific to OpenID Connect. > > Further, as a default “openid-configuration” as the default further gives > people the impression that a plain OAuth server *is* an authentication server > and that the normal access token received is evidence of a successful > authentication. > > It would be better to point out that application may include oauth discovery > in their discovery URI and that OAuth is an example of this. It might be good > to include two examples. E.g. OIDC and SCIM (as another referenceable > example). > > GET /.well-known/openid-configuration > and > GET /.well-known/scim > Retrieve the OAuth configuration for the application openid and scim > respectively. > > The use of: > GET /.well-known/oauth2/ > Should be the default used when there is no known application based > well-known application based URI discovery. > > Of course, the concern I raised earlier is that this approach of application > specific URIs ends up requiring every application to make an IANA > registration if they don’t want to use the default of “oauth2” (or > “openid-configuration”). Is that what the authors expect? > > It seemed better to me to use the webfinger syntax to allow the client to say > “I want the designated OAuth configuration for the resource service X” would > be a better design that avoids extensive IANA registration. > > Phil > > @independentid > www.independentid.com <http://www.independentid.com/>[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > > > > > >> On Feb 17, 2016, at 11:48 PM, Mike Jones <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> In response to working group input, this version of the OAuth Discovery >> specification has been pared down to its essence – leaving only the features >> that are already widely deployed. Specifically, all that remains is the >> definition of the authorization server discovery metadata document and the >> metadata values used in it. The WebFinger discovery logic has been removed. >> The relationship between the issuer identifier URL and the well-known URI >> path relative to it at which the discovery metadata document is located has >> also been clarified. >> >> Given that this now describes only features that are in widespread >> deployment, the editors believe that this version is ready for working group >> last call. >> >> The specification is available at: >> · http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-discovery-01 >> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-discovery-01> >> >> An HTML-formatted version is also available at: >> · http://self-issued.info/docs/draft-ietf-oauth-discovery-01.html >> <http://self-issued.info/docs/draft-ietf-oauth-discovery-01.html> >> >> -- Mike & Nat & >> John >> >> P.S. This notice was also posted at http://self-issued.info/?p=1544 >> <http://self-issued.info/?p=1544> and as @selfissued >> <https://twitter.com/selfissued>. >> _______________________________________________ >> OAuth mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth> > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
