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

Vivek Biswas vivek.biswas at gmail.com
Wed Jul 29 18:12:48 UTC 2015


To be very honest as a developer, I find it quite confusing to read 1
concise spec and than trying to diff between the profile of the spec and
the original spec.
 It makes lot easier to know exactly what has changed in the profile of the
spec vs the original spec and implement only the piece that has changed.

-Vivek

On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones at microsoft.com>
wrote:

>  Actually, implementers don’t have to read two specs.  They only have to
> read the Connect registration spec.  It’s complete.
>
>
>
> *From:* Justin Richer [mailto:jricher at mit.edu]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 29, 2015 10:46 AM
> *To:* William Denniss
>
> *Cc:* Mike Jones; 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 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> 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>
> 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]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 29, 2015 10:35 AM
> *To:* Justin Richer
> *Cc:* Mike Jones; 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> 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>
> 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
> <torsten at lodderstedt.net>]
>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 29, 2015 5:05 AM
> *To:* Mike Jones
> *Cc:* 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
>
> 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
>
> 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
> 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
> 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/20150729/b2641421/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Openid-specs-ab mailing list