[Openid-specs-ab] Issue #1140: Assurance: The description of utility_bill/provider contradicts its definition in the JSON schema (openid/connect)

Takahiko Kawasaki issues-reply at bitbucket.org
Wed Dec 11 22:45:36 UTC 2019


New issue 1140: Assurance: The description of utility_bill/provider contradicts its definition in the JSON schema
https://bitbucket.org/openid/connect/issues/1140/assurance-the-description-of-utility_bill

Takahiko Kawasaki:

“4.1.1.2. utility\_bill” explains the `provider` sub-element as follows:

> `provider`: REQUIRED. A JSON object identifying the respective provider that issued the bill. The object consists of the following properties:
>
> - `name`: A String designating the provider.  
> - All elements of the OpenID Connect `address` Claim \(\[OpenID\]\)

“[5.1.1. Address Claim](https://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html#AddressClaim)” in OIDC Core 1.0 says that the `address` claim contains the following fields.

* `formatted`
* `street_address`
* `locality`
* `region`
* `postal_code`
* `country`

As a result, `provider` should have `name`, `formatted`, `street_address`, `locality`, `region`, `postal_code` and `country`.

However, `provider` in the JSON schema is defined as follows:

‌

```json
"provider":{
  "type":"object",
  "properties":{
    "name":{
      "type":"string"
    },
    "country":{
      "type":"string"
    },
    "region":{
      "type":"string"
    },
    "street_address":{
      "type":"string"
    }
  }
}
```

‌

`formatted`, `locality` and `postal_code` are missing.

Either the description in Section 4.1.1.2. or the JSON schema needs to be changed so that they don’t contradict each other.




More information about the Openid-specs-ab mailing list