[Openid-specs-risc] Account State Events Format

Hardt, Dick dick at amazon.com
Thu May 18 00:32:41 UTC 2017

I’m not super keen on having second layer of information about an event as it adds complexity, and this seems like the only place we want to do it. (I do think you proposed one other place)

An alternative way of providing the additional information is to append chars to the string. For example


This lets developers that only care about http://schemas.openid.net/risc/event-type/account_disabled to look at events that start with that, rather than it being a JSON object.


On 5/17/17, 5:23 PM, someone claiming to be "Openid-specs-risc on behalf of Marius Scurtescu" <openid-specs-risc-bounces at lists.openid.net<mailto:openid-specs-risc-bounces at lists.openid.net> on behalf of mscurtescu at google.com<mailto:mscurtescu at google.com>> wrote:

At the face-to-face a couple of weeks ago and also on Monday during our call we talked about RISC events that reflect an account state change between disabled and enabled. For example, account hijacked / recovered, account deleted / undeleted, etc.

On one hand there are privacy concerns, and for example if a user violated ToS with a provider then that fact should not be disclosed (I think we have agreement here).

On the other had at least with some of the event we do want to be very specific so abuse systems get a quality signal.

So far the agreement was that hijacking and accounts created by bots need a distinct signal, everything else can use a generic one.

I am proposing the following format:

1. All of these events will use these two event type URIs:

2. For hijacking and bot created the transmitter should add a nested attribute called "reason" with values like "hijacking" and "bot"

An example:
  "iss": "https://server.example.com",
  "sub": "248289761001",
  "aud": "s6BhdRkqt3",
  "iat": 1471566154,
  "jti": "bWJq",
  "events": {
      "reason": "hijacking",

We can define more values for "reason" and transmitter could chose to provide them. The more distinct events are provided the easier it is to identify the ToS cases through elimination, so there should be a good reason to be specific (if ToS privacy is a concern).

Sounds good? Thoughts?

There are other ways to capture these requirements (distinct URIs for hijacking and bot or multiple URIs), but this is the most concise and the safest for developers who are only interested in account state (so they don't have to deal with event URIs they don't fully understand or care about).

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-risc/attachments/20170518/1f0cd4ca/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Openid-specs-risc mailing list