[Openid-specs-ab] Little more feedback

[George Fletcher]

Agree this wording can get cleaned up. Will try and take a look today. 
Do we have any more "required" claims besides "id"?  Do we need to 
identify which identifier the issuer should return for this id? i.e. 
does it need to match an identifier returned from the token 
introspection endpoint, or the id in the access_token?

Thanks,
George

On 7/12/11 1:27 AM, Breno de Medeiros wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 18:20, Johnny Bufu<jbufu at janrain.com>  wrote:
>> On 11-07-11 03:44 PM, Pam Dingle wrote:
>>> UserInfo:
>>>
>>>     * section 2.2 - the description of "must return a subset" and "may
>>>       return additional attributes" seems to conflict to me.
>> It looked like a conflict to me at the first read too; however, I noticed
>> that the wording after the MUST is that the response "*contains* a set of
>> claims that are a subset".
>>
>> So a subset of the defined claims MUST be included with each response, extra
>> claims MAY be added as well.
>>
>> The MUST is however superfluous given that the empty set is a subset of any
>> other set. Intent was probably that the response MUST contain a non-empty
>> subset of the defined claims.
> I think we should make the MUST specific: The set of claims MUST
> include the 'id', for instance.
>
>> Johnny
>> _______________________________________________
>> Openid-specs-ab mailing list
>> Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab
>>
>
>

-- 
Chief Architect                   AIM:  gffletch
Identity Services Engineering     Work: george.fletcher at teamaol.com
AOL Inc.                          Home: gffletch at aol.com
Mobile: +1-703-462-3494           Blog: http://practicalid.blogspot.com
Office: +1-703-265-2544           Twitter: http://twitter.com/gffletch

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20110712/8290d0fe/attachment.html>