[Openid-specs-ab] How to represent UserInfo - Address claims in OpenID request object?

[Vladimir Dzhuvinov / NimbusDS]

Thank you guys for your comments on that. 

It wasn't immediately obvious to me how deep the claim requirement can
be specified and what level of nesting to expect on the OP side. Should
we perhaps add an "address" claim to the OpenID request object example?
That could be a helpful hint to developers.

Vladimir

--
Vladimir Dzhuvinov : www.NimbusDS.com : vladimir at nimbusds.com



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Openid-specs-ab] How to represent UserInfo - Address
claims in OpenID request object?
From: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones at microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, November 19, 2012 11:23 pm
To: John Bradley <ve7jtb at ve7jtb.com>, Roland Hedberg
<roland.hedberg at adm.umu.se>
Cc: "openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net"
<openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>


We talked about this on the working group call. We don't think it's
worth adding the complexity of trying to specify attributes of fields
within a claim.

In either event, it's already not an error to not release essential
claims. Essential is just a strong hint to the user that, should the
information not be provided, that the end-to-end scenario is not likely
to work.

 -- Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net
[mailto:openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net] On Behalf Of John
Bradley
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 1:15 PM
To: Roland Hedberg
Cc: openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
Subject: Re: [Openid-specs-ab] How to represent UserInfo - Address
claims in OpenID request object?

It is up to the claim definition to specify how parameters are
interpreted.

There is a reserved claim at the top level of claim object for
essential. 

The normal interpretation would be that if that is set to essential the
address claim object must be returned.
That should probably be clarified in the claim definition to state if
all the sub-claims must be included.

Nothing would stop us from also defining the essential parameter on a
sub-claim basis, other than it perhaps being overkill.

So I would say that for the moment your country being essential example
is not supported unless we change the definition of the address claim.

John B.
On 2012-11-19, at 2:14 PM, Roland Hedberg <roland.hedberg at adm.umu.se>
wrote:

> Hi Vladimir,
> 
> 19 nov 2012 kl. 11:44 skrev Vladimir Dzhuvinov / NimbusDS <vladimir at nimbusds.com>:
> 
>> 
>> Or listed individually?
>> 
>> { "userinfo":
>> { "claims":
>> { "address: 
>> { "country: { "essential": true}, ...
> 
> 
> Does this mean:
> 
> I'd like you to supply address and when you do, country should be in there.
> 
> or
> 
> If you supply an address, country should be in there.
> 
> -- Roland
> ------------------------------------------------------
> Roland Hedberg
> IT Architect/Senior Researcher
> ICT Services and System Development (ITS) 
> Umeå University 
> SE-901 87 Umeå, Sweden 
> Phone +46 90 786 68 44
> Mobile +46 70 696 68 44 
> www.its.umu.se 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
_______________________________________________
Openid-specs-ab mailing list
Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab