[Openid-specs-ab] Dynamic Client Registration

Mike Jones Michael.Jones at microsoft.com
Sat Feb 2 20:11:17 UTC 2013

At least for Connect, I believe that we want to define only the operations that are essential to making Connect work.  So for instance, unregistering clients and retrieving registration state aren't actually necessary operations, and so I would not add these at the present time.  We want to keep the implementation footprint as small as possible.

				-- Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net [mailto:openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net] On Behalf Of John Bradley
Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 9:20 AM
To: Vladimir Dzhuvinov / NimbusDS
Cc: openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net Group
Subject: Re: [Openid-specs-ab] Dynamic Client Registration

As you point out the client_id was removed when we went to OAuth authentication by the client for updates.

I can see in a developer environment you may want to allow the master token to modify any of the clients created by it thus requiring a separate client_id parameter.  
That is a reasonable reason to have that parameter. 

As far as de registering a client we start down a slippery slope of full API management.  

I would not want to de register a app.  I could perhaps be convinced to have a app state where you could have "enabled": false.

That way an admin could disable a compromised client_id.

However that raises questions like should an app be able to re enable itself?   Should that only be modifiable through the developer credential?

Disabling is a bit of a can of worms so I am cautious, perhaps it belongs in a client management extension.

I am also receptive to the use of GET to inspect the current client config state without updating it.

John B.

On 2013-02-02, at 7:12 AM, "Vladimir Dzhuvinov / NimbusDS" <vladimir at nimbusds.com> wrote:

> Thank you John for explaining the story behind the current spec.
>> I would like to remove rotate_secret as it is not restful for those 
>> that care and not especially useful.
> If we think in terms of REST and CRUD, is there a scenario where a 
> client may want to unregister? E.g. for an  IdP service that is paid 
> for?
> I also have a real case with a customer who wishes to add an optional 
> manual registration UI which should speak to the dynamic registration 
> endpoint for all requests:
> (1) client admin registering app,
> (2) client admin viewing existing registered app details,
> (3) client admin updating registered app details,
> (4) client admin deleting app registration.
> The current endpoint spec that we have covers (1) and (3); (2) is 
> however only indirectly covered, using the update operation as a work 
> around, and (4) not at all.
> The missing "client_id" from update operations also makes it hard for 
> trusted third parties, such as the server hosting the manual reg UI, 
> to handle updates, because the access_token is directly tied to the 
> client_id and is used to derive it. If the client_id was specified 
> explicitly we could then issue an access_token the reg UI server for 
> all update operations.
> Vladimir
> _______________________________________________
> Openid-specs-ab mailing list
> Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab

Openid-specs-ab mailing list
Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net

More information about the Openid-specs-ab mailing list