Open selfissued opened 2 years ago
Just to clarify where would you like to remove this from, the intent of the draft (which I suspect is unclear) is when a client is making an authorization or token request to an AS and is wishing to indicate it is discoverable, that it set its client_id == its client_uri, the value of the client_uri for the client is also present in its resolved metadata.
I understand the intent. My point is that you can already tell that the client is publishing its client information for retrieval by the AS by sending an https
-valued client_id
without having this parameter. Having the application/entity-statement+jwt
media type in the response is a double-check on that.
This does bring up the question of how you would indicate a resolvable client_id that is using a scheme other than https
. Tho I personally tend to agree that using client_id
for this rather than defining a new parameter makes sense.
@aaronpk please review the latest draft where we have moved from client_discovery to a parameter that describes how to interpret the client_id, which I believe creates the required extensibility point for clients that want to identify with an AS using a non https based identifier.
In Automatic Client Registration, there's no need for the
client_uri
parameter because this information is already carried in theclient_id
parameter. When an authorization server receives a request with aclient_id
value that is anhttps
URL, it retrieves the contents of the URL to obtain the client data.Note that the authorization server can tell that the resource contains data about the client because the response uses the media type
application/entity-statement+jwt
.Therefore, please remove the unnecessary
client_uri
parameter. Thanks.