<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Both code and 'token id_token' should be mediatory to implement for servers. <div><br></div><div>Is there a particular place that you are seeing that in the spec. I think that is a bug, if true. I will look for it today.</div><div><br></div><div>If the WG did want code to be the only MTI flow then we would defiantly need to change the basic profile to code.</div><div><br></div><div>John<br><div><div>On 2012-02-21, at 10:47 AM, Justin Richer wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
I would prefer to have the Basic Client use the code flow for
another reason: the code flow is the only one that's mandatory to
implement for the server. So what we have right now is advice for
servers to implement something that our advice to clients say they
don't have to.<br>
<br>
-- Justin<br>
<br>
On 02/20/2012 07:30 PM, John Bradley wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:320D07FB-4DB3-413E-B29A-A7607F3C76AD@ve7jtb.com" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Torsten,
From your tickets it looks like you are thinking that the Basic client profile is for JS clients in the browser doing canvas type Aps and directly accessing the check_id and user_info endpoints.
The idea for what i't worth was that it is intended to be a Web server profile that uses the browser side implicit flow, with a simple sever side callback that extracts the fragment and passes it to the server for processing and verification. That is why Cross Origin Resource sharing is not mentioned win that profile.
It is true that that profile could be used for a Canvas type JS app in the browser accessing the endpoints as well.
Would your preference have been to make the basic client use the code flow? It is arguably similar in complexity at the end of the day, but with better security for Web Server type applications.
I would probably just have the client base64 decode the id_token and forget calling the check_id endpoint. If the client doesn't have the correct token endpoint and gives the client secret to it checking the signature on the id_token is not very useful:)
Regards
John B.
On 2012-02-20, at 3:58 PM, Torsten Lodderstedt wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi all,
I'm unable to find out whether OpenID Connect supports public clients. It seems Connect assumes all clients register with the OP and obtain a client credential. If this observation is correct, what is the reason for being more restrictive than OAuth?
regards,
Torsten.
_______________________________________________
Openid-specs-ab mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Openid-specs-ab@lists.openid.net">Openid-specs-ab@lists.openid.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab">http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""></pre>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Openid-specs-ab mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Openid-specs-ab@lists.openid.net">Openid-specs-ab@lists.openid.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab">http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>