[Openid-specs-ab] Dynamic Client Registration

Mike Jones Michael.Jones at microsoft.com
Sun Feb 3 17:27:18 UTC 2013


Thanks for doing this.  It helps make apparent the current differences between the OAuth dynamic registration spec and the Connect dynamic registration spec.

I've read the differences in your doc from the current Connect spec.  I saw the following changes:
  - Moved Terminology section out of Introduction
  - Added several terminology definitions
  - Deleted the "operation" parameter
  - Deleted most of "rotate_secret"
  - Added Client Read Request (GET)
  - Added Client Delete Request (DELETE)
  - Added "Self URL"
  - Added "_links"
  - Removed "access_token" parameter from Client Registration and Update Request
  - Undid the edits that addressed https://bitbucket.org/openid/connect/issue/698/messages-12-terminology-inconsistent-use
  - Added two Editor's Notes
  - Changed the Japanese client name
  - Changed value of example registration_access_token
  - Added "scope" to the example response (which isn't defined in the spec)
  - Added "grant_type" to the example response (which isn't defined in the spec)
  - Removed these fields from the example response:  token_endpoint_auth_method, application_type, redirect_uris, client_name, client_name_#ja-Jpan-JP, subject_type, sector_identifier_url, userinfo_encrypted_response_alg, userinfo_encrypted_response_enc
  - Added issued_at
  - Added client update example (that seems to be missing many parameters that were present in the registration request example)
  - Changed the history entries for -14 and -08
  - Changed where line breaks occur in many places in the XML source (making diffing the .xml source quite difficult)

If I missed any other changes, please let me know.  I haven't diffed your edited version with the OAuth spec.  I assume many/most of the changes made were made to match the OAuth draft.

I was originally thinking that I would just review the changes and check them in, but there's several changes that were made that haven't been discussed by the working group and several changes that I believe were probably unintended, such as removing the fields from the example response, adding undefined fields to the example response, reverting the issue #698 changes, editing the history entries, and reformatting much of the XML, so I decided not to check anything in based on this draft for now.  We should probably figure out which of these changes we should actually apply to the current draft and then check only those in.  Let's talk about this on the Monday call.

Also, we should talk about the proposal in your editor's note to change from a form encoded request to a JSON request.

Thanks again for working to help us understand the ways in which the two specs are and aren't aligned.

                                                            Thanks again,
                                                            -- Mike

From: Nat Sakimura [mailto:sakimura at gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 1:55 AM
To: Mike Jones
Cc: John Bradley; Vladimir Dzhuvinov / NimbusDS; openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net Group; Justin Richer
Subject: Re: [Openid-specs-ab] Dynamic Client Registration

Before getting this mail, I already added GET and DELETE.
GET would not change the footprint at all, since its functionality is actually included in the POST (update).
Normative text in the DELETE is just two lines so it can be easily added or removed.
Hard part is what John has pointed out - whether we really want to allow the client to de-register.

Here are the changed drafts:
http://nat.sakimura.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/draft-openid-connect-registration-1_0.html
http://nat.sakimura.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/openid-connect-registration-1_0.xml

Nat

2013/2/3 Mike Jones <Michael.Jones at microsoft.com<mailto:Michael.Jones at microsoft.com>>
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> [mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab



--
Nat Sakimura (=nat)
Chairman, OpenID Foundation
http://nat.sakimura.org/
@_nat_en
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20130203/56218a15/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Openid-specs-ab mailing list