[Openid-specs-ab] User Profile liveness

George Fletcher gffletch at aol.com
Thu Feb 4 21:42:07 UTC 2016


I like the idea but it feels like whether it's useful or not is 
completely dependent on the implementation of the AS. If the AS identity 
record has a "last accessed" field that I update every time the user 
authenticates or SSO's then the 'last_updated' value will almost always 
be different than what the client has. However, if the identity record 
just has username and email address then the 'last_updated' value would 
rarely change and it would be very useful to the clients. Of course real 
practice is somewhere in the middle:)

Thanks,
George

On 2/4/16 1:29 PM, Justin Richer wrote:
> You can still do all of these other things below as well, this doesn’t preclude them. For most, making the call at all is the trouble, not the size of the response. If I can avoid the network roundtrip then we’re in better shape.
>
> It’s a very small delta to the ID token.
>
>   — Justin
>
>> On Feb 4, 2016, at 11:27 AM, John Bradley <ve7jtb at ve7jtb.com> wrote:
>>
>> I see why you might want to do that.
>>
>> That however release on the user being present to do an authentication.
>>
>> I would prefer to find a more REST like approach where the client can use its token to do a HEAD of the user-info endpoint to see if the resource has changed.
>>
>> That may well be harder to do in implementations however.
>>
>> Back channel calls are not that expensive compared to making all id_tokens larger.
>>
>> Is it the size of the response that bothers people, or checking at all?
>>
>> We could just add a last changed claim to user_info so that the client would not need to process the response, but that probably doesn’t save much.
>>
>> The concern with adding it to the id_token is that people may add it by default, and it not be used by clients.
>>
>> If we add it it should be explicitly asked for as a scope.
>>
>> John B.
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 4, 2016, at 1:05 PM, Justin Richer <jricher at MIT.EDU> wrote:
>>>
>>> One of the good things in OIDC is the fact that the claims about a user are split between the ID Token (things that are needed for the authN transaction) and the user info endpoint (things that are needed for the profile and other functions of the app). Theoretically it cuts down on sending redundant and unchanging information with each authentication. However, the tension of whether and when an RP should pull from the IdP’s UserInfo Endpoint is an age old question of cache consistency. Should the RP call on each transaction? After a time out? When it really really wants to?
>>>
>>> Anyway, I think there’s a simple way that the IdP can signal to the RP whether it’s worth pulling information. If the IdP always includes the “last_updated” claim in the ID token, the RP can decide whether its cache of UserInfo is fresh enough or not by doing a simple comparison on that value and its local cache. It’s coarse grained, because you don’t know if you care about whatever claim was updated or not, but it’s at least *some* signal that can be used inside an already existing structure.
>>>
>>> We’re considering just implementing this in our server and client, but I’d like to see what others thought of this idea and if it would be worthwhile propagating this pattern. I feel it’s very low overhead in the ID Token for a potentially big benefit of live data and lower network traffic from the RP.
>>>
>>> — Justin
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Openid-specs-ab mailing list
>>> Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
>>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160204/03ad290c/attachment.html>


More information about the Openid-specs-ab mailing list