Clarification about Explicit Registration Responses and Entity Statements

[eduperottoni]

Hey all!

I was reading the current state of the spec and I think we can improve the way Explicit Registration response is explained. In section 3.4, it seems to be considered as a type of Entity Statement despite not appearing as a type in the introductory text of the section. Additionally, we have the application/explicit-registration-response+jwt, saying that it's not an Entity Statement.

Another point is that the explanation about the trust_anchor claim was duplicated in sections 3.4 and 12.2.3 Successful Explicit Client Registration Response. Furthermore, there are Entity Registration Response claims which are not listed on the sections 3.4 and 3.5 Entity Statement Validation (aud, for example).

This ambiguity can cause confusion for readers and it's better to avoid it. IMHO, the best way of solving this is just splitting the concepts of Entity Statement and Explicit Registration response. Each one in its place on the text (and that's what I've done in this PR).

Anyway, I'm open for discussions :)

Modifications:

• Removed the extra explanation of jwks claim within Explicit Registration responses
• Removed section 3.4 Claims Specific to Explicit Registration Responses
• Changed the location of the trust_anchor claim validation step

[selfissued]

This PR is a mix of useful editorial improvements and changes to the model. I agree with the former. I disagree with the latter.

The response from an Explicit Registration response is an Entity Configuration - the one that is used by the RP.

I would not do this:

Removed section 3.4 Claims Specific to Explicit Registration Responses

I am not sure that we should do this:

Changed the location of the trust_anchor claim validation step

I'm not sure in what sense this is extra, because I don't find it duplicated elsewhere:

Removed the extra explanation of jwks claim within Explicit Registration responses

Can you please remove the model changes and keep the editorial improvements? Thanks.