[Openid-specs-ab] May 25, 2012 OpenID Connect Update Release

Brian Campbell bcampbell at pingidentity.com
Tue Jun 5 17:13:36 UTC 2012

I haven't thought though all the cases so this might be short sighted but
it would seem that adding a new parameter to the request would be the way
to go.  As you say, id_token is already a divergence from OAuth so it seems
reasonable to have a divergent parameter that toggles the claims that go in

So I guess my preference would be to add a new request param (probably
named claims_in_id_token) to the authorization request along the lines of
what's already being done for nonce, display, prompt, etc.

On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 10:53 AM, John Bradley <ve7jtb at ve7jtb.com> wrote:

> I don't know that anyone is deeply attached to having it as a scope.   The
> idea was to not require a request object.
> Scopes implicitly specify the RS endpoint.   This is sort of modifying the
> endpoint for other scopes, and I understand that is a touch awkward.
> Would something like having separate scopes like:
> email_id
> profile_id
> phone_id
> address_id
> If you ask for email it comes back from user_info and if you ask for
> email_id it is in the id_token.
> Or is there something else you are thinking such as adding an extra
> parameter?  We are trying not to diverge from OAuth as much as possible.
> (Yes I know id_token is a big divergence)
> If people don't like the claims_in_id_token scope then lets get alternate
> proposals on the table quickly.
> John B.
> On 2012-06-05, at 12:25 PM, Brian Campbell wrote:
> I'm trying to understand why a scope was used to indicate the desire for
> user info claims to be returned in the ID Token? It really seems like
> something that should be isolated to a flag on the request (a new parameter
> or something in the request object). It feels out of place as a scope and
> will require ASs to have special conditional treatment of that one scope
> value (which I'd like to avoid as I'd think most implementers would).
> On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 12:13 AM, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones at microsoft.com>wrote:
>>    - Added scope value claims_in_id_token as a switch to indicate that
>>    the UserInfo claims should be returned in the ID Token, per issue #561
>> _______________________________________________
> Openid-specs-ab mailing list
> Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20120605/257503e6/attachment.html>

More information about the Openid-specs-ab mailing list