[Openid-specs-ab] Please respond: poll on claims_in_id_token switch in the scope
sakimura at gmail.com
Thu Jun 7 06:57:28 UTC 2012
I would like to take this issue to a closure quickly.
These issues were discussed at F2F on May 1.
However, that was only among the f2f participant.
I understand the current comments are from those who were not at F2F,
and implementers' comments from those implementing it.
I would appreciate a quick response to the following questions so to
sum up a bit to help the progress in this issue:
1. Please indicate which is your preferred way.
a) Using claims_in_id_token switch in the "scope"
b) Using a new response type.
Note: on May 1 F2F, 1-a) was chosen. This is how the current draft
was prepared. (cf. issue #561)
2. If 1-b) is chosen, which do you prefer:
a) A combined response type: e.g., id_token_with_userinfo
b) combination of id_token and userinfo
3. As a method for returning userinfo claims in the front channel,
which do you prefer?
a) Claims in id_token
b) separate userinfo token with its metadata in id_token?
Note: At the F2F, a) was chosen.
Thanks for your cooperation.
On 2012/06/07, at 15:29, Roland Hedberg <roland.hedberg at adm.umu.se> wrote:
> 7 jun 2012 kl. 07:40 skrev nov matake:
>> I'm OK with both making single "id_token_with_userinfo" response type or combination of "id_token" and "userinfo".
> I'm definitely in favor of the later.
> That is letting 'id_token' contain metadata about the userinfo and the authentication, and 'userinfo' pure user info.
> Similar to the structure of the openid request object.
> -- Roland
> Roland Hedberg
> IT Architect/Senior Researcher
> ICT Services and System Development (ITS)
> Umeå University
> SE-901 87 Umeå, Sweden
> Phone +46 90 786 68 44
> Mobile +46 70 696 68 44
> Openid-specs-ab mailing list
> Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
More information about the Openid-specs-ab