Section 10.2 Explicit Registration lacks formal parameter definition

Issue #1660 resolved
Torsten Lodderstedt created an issue

The client registration parameters are not formally defined but just briefly mentioned in the section’s introduction.

Comments (11)

  1. Giuseppe De Marco

    we have two options:

    1. add a pointer in section 10.2.x to the appendix
    2. move the examples and in 10.2.x

    even if we prefer the option 1 or 2 we should have to review the section 10.2.x and define the parameters for the explicit client registration

  2. Torsten Lodderstedt reporter

    @Vladimir Dzhuvinov the spec is a bit inconsistent re examples. Other normative sections also have examples.

  3. Michael Jones
    • changed status to open

    Discussed on the 6-Oct-22 working group call. We clearly need to normatively define explicit registration and its parameters.

  4. Giuseppe De Marco

    at point 3 and 4 of https://openid.bitbucket.io/connect/openid-connect-federation-1_0.html#section-10.2.1.1
    we read how an RP builds the explicit client registration

    I agree that we need to improve the text, we should define the format of the request and the method and give to readers a small text with clear properties of the requests.
    I also assume that an EC may have 0 or more than a single Trust Mark and many of redirect_uris and jwks, for this reason the HTTP method for the explicit client registration should be POST.

    however, those points explains that in the request there should be a EC or an entire Trust Chain.
    This means that we don’t have any parameters in the request, but the EC/TC in the body of HTTP POST.

  5. Log in to comment