<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
I agree with John's reading of it. I think it's just cleaner that if
the client doesn't send a field, then the server shouldn't change
it. <br>
<br>
I really disagree with the notion of going back to the old way of
the registration not returning the client information, especially if
OIDC doesn't adopt the "client configuration read" parameter. Hiding
from server-asserted parameters doesn't really change the problem.
The client would still send {foo: A, bar: B} to the server and we'd
be in the exact same predicament that I outline below. Except now,
the client has *no chance* to do something sensible and send all
fields. <br>
<br>
We can work around this by being very, very specific about what the
*server* does with updates from the client. The current text that
implies a full replace of all fields, whether they're present or
not, is insufficient. This, you'll note, is the nature of my
suggested change to the update semantics -- text that makes it
explicit what the server is supposed to do when fields are present,
missing, or null. The fact that it happens to allow for a
partial-update is a side effect. <br>
<br>
In reality, I believe most clients will do one of two things with
updating their info, no matter what the servers/specs:<br>
<br>
1) Keep a data model object around of their known fields and push
those to the server every time. They'll largely ignore what comes
back from the server except for the fields that are solely the
purview of the server to assert: client_id, client_secret,
registration_access_token, and the like. If there's a core OIDC
field like, say, default_acr that they don't care about, they'll
never notice or send it. When they want to update client_name,
they'll drop it into their model object that they used during
registration and send it to the update endpoint.<br>
<br>
2) Download the data model from the server with all of the fields
filled in. Since it's a JSON object, they'll probably keep it around
as such. When they need to update a field, they'll push the update
into the right member, PUT the whole object up to the server, and
download the new version that comes back as a result. <br>
<br>
(Really, really smart clients will do #2 and then follow with an
integrity check on the values to make sure that they got what they
wanted.)<br>
<br>
I believe that both of these cases are better served by the
semantics that I have outlined for server action and that there are
far too many ambiguities of what constitutes proper server behavior
with the current language and semantics, as I read them at least. <br>
<br>
Finally, all of this came about when I sat down to actually try and
implement the old OIDC registration spec and realized that there
wasn't a clear answer as to what the server should do in these
cases. That's why I raised the issue in the first place and why I've
incorporated these semantics into the OAuth DynReg draft.<br>
<br>
-- Justin<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 02/06/2013 04:13 PM, Mike Jones
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B168042967394367418400@TK5EX14MBXC284.redmond.corp.microsoft.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered
medium)">
<base href="x-msg://3058/">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;}
span.hoenzb
{mso-style-name:hoenzb;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I
think Justin allows returned fields with unknown meanings to
be sent back in an update request, and I would at least
strongly recommend against doing that.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I
disagree with you that partial-replace is cleaner. A whole
bunch of potential ambiguities that are being discussed in
this thread just won’t come up if we maintain the current
semantics that update requests must contain a complete list
of the intended new parameter values.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">In
particular, if we imply or allow not-understood result
parameters to be passed back in as update parameters, we’ve
opened a Pandora’s box of unexpected and non-interoperable
behaviors.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I’m
beginning to think that Client Register should only return
the registration_access_token, client_id, and client_secret,
like it used to. Then these ambiguities won’t be able to
arise.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">
-- Mike<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">
John Bradley [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com">mailto:ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, February 06, 2013 1:04 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Mike Jones<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Justin Richer; Brian Campbell;
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:openid-specs-ab@lists.openid.net">openid-specs-ab@lists.openid.net</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Openid-specs-ab] Fields that the
server has provisioned on the client's behalf<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Yes, I think that is how Justin currently
has it. <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Elements not sent in the request are not
changed. That is different from our prior strategy of
replacing the entire config, but I think cleaner.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">John B.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 2013-02-06, at 1:54 PM, Mike Jones
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Michael.Jones@microsoft.com">Michael.Jones@microsoft.com</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I
think the cleanest thing to do is to recommend that
clients NOT send back of the fields returned from
the registration request, other than
registration_access_token and client_id in update
requests. That way the ambiguities and potential
inconsistencies that could arise from a client
changing “bar” but not “baz” because it doesn’t know
what “baz” means, but the new “bar” and “baz” values
being incompatible can’t arise.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">The
client should treat most of the information returned
from the registration as informational – not
actionable – especially any fields whose meanings
aren’t defined by OpenID Connect.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">
-- Mike</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span
class="apple-converted-space"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> </span></span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">Justin
Richer [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:jricher@">mailto:jricher@</a><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://mitre.org">mitre.org</a>]<span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
<b>Sent:</b><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>Wednesday,
February 06, 2013 11:41 AM<br>
<b>To:</b><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>Brian
Campbell<br>
<b>Cc:</b><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>Mike
Jones; <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:openid-specs-ab@lists.openid.net">
openid-specs-ab@lists.openid.net</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b><span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span>Re:
[Openid-specs-ab] Fields that the server has
provisioned on the client's behalf</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">So the
problem comes if you have a "full replace" semantic for
the update. Say a client knows about:<br>
<br>
{ foo: "A", bar: "B" }<br>
<br>
And it sends those in a registration request. The server
sends back:<br>
<br>
{ client_id: "aksdfjhasd", foo: "A", bar: "OTHER", baz:
"C" }<br>
<br>
The question is, do we require the client to send back
the entire object above each time, or can it simply send
back the original { foo: "A", bar "B" } request? If it
does the latter, what is the server supposed to do? Does
it delete the "baz: C" mapping? Does it try to replace
the "bar: OTHER" with "bar: B"?<br>
<br>
-- Justin<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 02/06/2013 02:37 PM, Brian
Campbell wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I'm confused. Especially about
a client providing something in a response.<span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
<br>
That aside, I think I get your intent but wasn't
sure what was expected with default values that
aren't really/necessarily "provisioned" and may
not even ever be used. Or if it matters.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 8:08
AM, Justin Richer <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jricher@mitre.org"
target="_blank"><span style="color:purple">jricher@mitre.org</span></a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Since I have been arguing
for a safer update mechanic, the intent was
actually:<br>
<br>
5) The client may provide these values in its
update response, either changed or as-given
from the server. If the client does not
provide these values, the server isn't
supposed to change them. The server is free to
reject any requested changes to any field from
the client, but MUST send back the current and
correct value to the client.<span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
<br>
With the current language of replace-all, this
turns into:<br>
<br>
6) The client must provide all values in its
update response, and the server is free to
reject and replace any values for any field
but MUST send back the current and correct
value to the client.<br>
<br>
The motivating factor for me is that, in our
implementation at least, there are a lot of
fields that are either defaulted or restricted
by the server, or are defined outside of the
base OAuth/OIDC world that some of our clients
care about (but others safely ignore). So the
client could be getting back a picture of
itself that's not quite what it asked for in
the first place, and it should be made aware
of those bits and pieces.<br>
<br>
It's all about the client getting a *complete*
and *accurate* model of itself if it wants
one.<span style="color:#888888"><br>
<br>
<span class="hoenzb"> -- Justin</span></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 02/06/2013 01:37 AM,
Mike Jones wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Justin,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">In his review comments,
Brian wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-registration-1_0-14.html#ClientRegisterResponse"
target="_blank"><span style="color:purple">http://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-registration-1_0-14.html#ClientRegisterResponse</span></a><br>
2.2.1. Client Register Operation Response<br>
<br>
This section and 2.2.3 have "Additionally,
the server MUST include all registered
metadata about a client as described in<span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-registration-1_0-14.html#ClientRegistration"
target="_blank"><span style="color:purple">Section 2.1</span></a>,
including any fields that the server has
provisioned on the client's behalf." What is
the expected behavior for default values
from 2.1 (that very well might not be stored
anywhere).<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Justin, can you answer
Brian’s question about the intent of the
text about “fields that the server has
provisioned on the client's behalf”? He
seems to be raising a point of ambiguity
in the registration spec as currently
worded.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">One aspect of this is
whether in an update operation:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">(1) the client should
be expected to be able to provide new
values for these fields that it didn’t
previously request in its initial
reservation request,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">(2) the client should
be prohibited from providing new values
for these fields that it didn’t previously
request in its initial reservation
request,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">(3) it is unspecified
whether the client can providing new
values for these fields that it didn’t
previously request in its initial
reservation request,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">(4) whether the client
must provide the same values for these
fields that it didn’t previously request
in its initial reservation request.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I believe that if we’re
going to allow the registration responses
to contain the values of fields that were
not in the initial registration request
and that are potentially not specified in
the OpenID Connect specifications, that
these questions need to be answered.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">
Thanks,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">
-- Mike<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Openid-specs-ab mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Openid-specs-ab@lists.openid.net"><span
style="color:purple">Openid-specs-ab@lists.openid.net</span></a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab"
target="_blank"><span style="color:purple">http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"">_______________________________________________<br>
Openid-specs-ab mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Openid-specs-ab@lists.openid.net">Openid-specs-ab@lists.openid.net</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab">http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>