[Openid-specs-ab] Signed request object issuer and audience
Michael.Jones at microsoft.com
Thu Nov 28 00:47:31 UTC 2013
Formerly, the spec said nothing about what these values were. I can live with making the "MUST"s "SHOULD"s, to accommodate the trust framework case you described. But I do think we need to say what the normal values are.
From: sakimura at gmail.com [mailto:sakimura at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Nat Sakimura
Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 3:48 PM
To: Mike Jones
Cc: openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
Subject: Re: [Openid-specs-ab] Signed request object issuer and audience
I oppose to the change to MUST.
I can easily think of a scenario such that a trust framework operator (TFO) signs the request object and the relying parties who are the member of the trust framework uses it. In this case, the iss will be the TFO, and aud would not be there, as the IdPs are undetermined at the time of signing. The client_id will be Client ID then. That's why it was a SHOULD. It was a deliberate decision. We should let the deployment profiles define these and not to be too prescriptive.
2013/11/28 Mike Jones <Michael.Jones at microsoft.com<mailto:Michael.Jones at microsoft.com>>
Core currently says:
If signed, the Request Object SHOULD contain the Claims iss (issuer) and aud (audience) as members, with their semantics being as defined in the JWT [JWT] specification.
In response to Justin's review comment that the "iss" and "aud" values should be specified, I started to write this:
The iss value MUST be the Client ID of the RP.
The aud value MUST be or include the OP's Issuer Identifier URL.
However, I then realized that the Client is already being communicated in the "client_id" request parameter, so also having it in the "iss" claim would be redundant.
I therefore propose that we explicitly say that an "iss" claim is not needed, since the Client ID identifies the request's originator, and require that the "client_id" parameter be present in all Request Objects. I would still add the sentence about the "aud" value.
Do people agree with this approach? I agree with Justin that we do need to specify what values to use.
Openid-specs-ab mailing list
Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net<mailto:Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Openid-specs-ab