[Openid-specs-ab] I'm planning to start applying errata edits to OpenID Connect

Preibisch, Sascha H Sascha.Preibisch at ca.com
Wed Jul 29 21:42:07 UTC 2015


As someone who has to implement the server side support I would prefer one spec at one location. The duplication would be handy but I would always switch back and forth to make sure that I haven’t missed potential differences for parts that are actually the same.

Ideally in OpenID Connect I would like additions, differences to be specified where its required.

Customers of ours are still in the process of learning that OpenID Connect is not something different than Oauth but built on top of if. With dynamic registration specified in two locations I would have to explain that they are the same and that we do support both.

Regards,
Sascha

From: Openid-specs-ab <openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net<mailto:openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net>> on behalf of Justin Richer <jricher at mit.edu<mailto:jricher at mit.edu>>
Date: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 10:46 AM
To: William Denniss <wdenniss at google.com<mailto:wdenniss at google.com>>
Cc: "openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net<mailto:openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net> Ab" <openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net<mailto:openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>>
Subject: Re: [Openid-specs-ab] I'm planning to start applying errata edits to OpenID Connect

+1 to this — the Core spec doesn’t redefine how to do OAuth, but includes it by reference and example. We can do the same here.

 — Justin

On Jul 29, 2015, at 1:44 PM, William Denniss <wdenniss at google.com<mailto:wdenniss at google.com>> wrote:

If there is duplication, implementors will need to read two specs, and manually diff them.  Personally I dislike doing that, and prefer 1 clear authoritative reference.

Given we have clear definition of the layers, in that Connect runs on OAuth, I think it makes sense for the specs to be structured in that way too.

For example, I think that the Connect Core doc would be a lot more confusing if it subsumed the entire OAuth spec.  It's better to say "you already know (and might have implemented) OAuth, here are the extra bits you need for Connect".

On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones at microsoft.com<mailto:Michael.Jones at microsoft.com>> wrote:
I actually disagree that this makes things easier for implementers.  Right now OpenID registration is self-contained.  People implementing it only need to refer to one spec.  If we remove the duplication, people will have to keep going back and forth between two specs.  Developers hate that.

                                                            -- Mike

From: William Denniss [mailto:wdenniss at google.com<mailto:wdenniss at google.com>]
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 10:35 AM
To: Justin Richer
Cc: Mike Jones; openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net<mailto:openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net> Ab

Subject: Re: [Openid-specs-ab] I'm planning to start applying errata edits to OpenID Connect


+1

A revision that removes the duplication would help implementers. It's good to cleanly separate the OAuth and Connect layers, now that we can.

On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Justin Richer <jricher at mit.edu<mailto:jricher at mit.edu>> wrote:
I can understand the rationale of not doing this during an errata action, but now that the IETF specs are available, what would it take for the WG to actually update the documents as Torsten suggests? The OIDC registration draft could really be quite minimal and import RFC7592 and RFC7592 directly for most of its normative content. The OIDC draft only adds a few fields to the client model and values to some fields (like response_type and token_endpoint_auth_method), but overall it isn’t any different.

I think it’s very unfortunate that the OAuth WG sat on this work for so long, otherwise we could have had it set up this way from the beginning.

 — Justin

On Jul 29, 2015, at 12:37 PM, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones at microsoft.com<mailto:Michael.Jones at microsoft.com>> wrote:

We’re not going to do major changes as part of an errata action, so we’re not going to remove the now-duplicated content.  That said, we will add a statement that the OpenID Registration spec is compatible with the OAuth Registration spec and that implementations are free to use features defined there such as software statements as appropriate.  Would that work for you?

                                                            -- Mike

From:torsten at lodderstedt.net<mailto:torsten at lodderstedt.net> [mailto:torsten at lodderstedt.net]
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 5:05 AM
To: Mike Jones
Cc: openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net<mailto:openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>
Subject: Re: [Openid-specs-ab] I'm planning to start applying errata edits to OpenID Connect


Hi Mike,

good to hear.

Regarding Dynamic Client Registration: Will you modify the OpenID Connect Spec to be based on RFC 7591? I'm asking because the OIDC Client Registration could be strip down (e.g. by removing the definition of registration request/response). Moreover, this would allow the OIDC version to leverage software statements, which are required for the MODRNA work.

best regards,
Torsten.

Am 24.07.2015 20:14, schrieb Mike Jones:
I wanted to let you know that I plan to start applying errata edits to the OpenID Connect specifications.  These edits will include:

·        Referencing the JOSE, JWT, OAuth Assertions, and acct URI RFCs instead of working group drafts

·        Registering the Connect-specific Dynamic Registration metadata values in the registry established by RFC 7591

·        Removing the warning about the Google “iss” value currently in Section 15.6.2

·        Addressing typos described in the issue tracker

If you know of other issues that we need to address as errata, please add them to the issue tracker at https://bitbucket.org/openid/connect/issues?status=new&status=open<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fbitbucket.org%2fopenid%2fconnect%2fissues%3fstatus%3dnew%26status%3dopen&data=01%7c01%7cMichael.Jones%40microsoft.com%7c31bcba812779461de4dc08d2980df30d%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=HXg%2bwHa8bJiF7SLAJUyFK0Lwp6SBXdWE27KLYYiXmHM%3d> using the milestone “Errata”.

Note that I’ll first publish the updated drafts to http://openid.bitbucket.org/<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fopenid.bitbucket.org%2f&data=01%7c01%7cMichael.Jones%40microsoft.com%7c31bcba812779461de4dc08d2980df30d%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=vcv4rTg9svF8fZYynqgEF7oV3N%2bEt2oVn0Tu%2bcrkJa8%3d> for review.  Also, I think we should wait until draft-ietf-jose-jwk-thumbprint<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2ftools.ietf.org%2fhtml%2fdraft-ietf-jose-jwk-thumbprint-08&data=01%7c01%7cMichael.Jones%40microsoft.com%7c31bcba812779461de4dc08d2980df30d%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=Abm%2brWGKRUjm0nf0zVUsAIdo%2b47JvLs54T2WDVPat%2fY%3d> exits the RFC Editor queue and becomes an RFC before we call this second errata round done.

                                                            -- Mike



_______________________________________________

Openid-specs-ab mailing list

Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net<mailto:Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>

http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2flists.openid.net%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2fopenid-specs-ab&data=01%7c01%7cMichael.Jones%40microsoft.com%7c31bcba812779461de4dc08d2980df30d%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=TCG5eGRf7Z73v3O1CdCcVLBp6kXmee66VK2fV9iAD8w%3d>



_______________________________________________
Openid-specs-ab mailing list
Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net<mailto:Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2flists.openid.net%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2fopenid-specs-ab&data=01%7c01%7cMichael.Jones%40microsoft.com%7cc0ed08410e1a4039ce0d08d2983c233c%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=IaRnzhdrFCvaWRyxa5YE9YR%2bVvGmC8%2btLpNs%2fEVzC%2f8%3d>


_______________________________________________
Openid-specs-ab mailing list
Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net<mailto:Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2flists.openid.net%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2fopenid-specs-ab&data=01%7c01%7cMichael.Jones%40microsoft.com%7cc0ed08410e1a4039ce0d08d2983c233c%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=IaRnzhdrFCvaWRyxa5YE9YR%2bVvGmC8%2btLpNs%2fEVzC%2f8%3d>



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20150729/fe8520d7/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Openid-specs-ab mailing list