[Openid-specs-ab] Minor test change to match the spec

[Mike Jones]

I believe that the working group is waiting to apply errata changes until the IETF specs in this cluster http://www.rfc-editor.org/cluster_info.php?cid=C241 and draft-ietf-appsawg-acct-uri are RFCs.  Also, once Google has corrected the issue described at http://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html#GoogleIss (which I expect has been done in preparation for your certification submissions), we can remove this clause through the errata process.



                                                                                 -- Mike

From: William Denniss [mailto:wdenniss at google.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 9:42 AM
To: Mike Jones
Cc: openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net; Eve Maler
Subject: Re: [Openid-specs-ab] Minor test change to match the spec

Acknowledged.

Regarding the next errata, when should we start that process? It seems like a good opportunity now, with the certification process still fresh in everyone's minds.


On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones at microsoft.com<mailto:Michael.Jones at microsoft.com>> wrote:
Garyl Erickson of ForgeRock identified a place where the tests didn’t match the spec and Roland just adjusted the tests as a result.  I wanted to document this change and the reason for it for the working group.


OP-nonce-NoReq-code is about supporting requests without a nonce.  The nonce is only needed when the ID Token is returned as a fragment.  The code+token flow doesn't return the nonce as a fragment.  Therefore, it should be legal to make a request with no nonce for code+token.  So the test tool had included the test OP-nonce-NoReq-code for both the code and code+token response types.



But the spec says that a nonce is required for Hybrid flows: http://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html#HybridIDToken 3.3.2.11 ID Token "Use of the nonce Claim is REQUIRED for this flow."  Therefore Roland just removed the OP-nonce-NoReq-code test from code+token, because it's testing for behavior that violates the spec.  In this case while common sense may indicate that you don't have to send a nonce for code+token, the spec says that you do.



In a related test, the OP-nonce-NoReq-noncode is about testing that implementations reject requests without a nonce.  Roland and I *did not* add this test for the code+token flow because doing so would break existing implementations that have already passed certification with this functionality, which matches common sense, but not the spec. ;-)  We *did* add this test for the code+id_token and code+id_token+token flows because the nonce really is required for security reasons in these cases.  That being said, per the rules of the test freeze, we will honor any Hybrid certifications that have already occurred without these tests having been presented by the test tool.


When errata time next comes around, we should think about whether to relax the requirement to include a nonce in the request for the code+token flow.  But for now, I think it’s right for our certification tests to allow either the logical or the specified behavior in this one case.

                                                            Cheers,
                                                            -- Mike


_______________________________________________
Openid-specs-ab mailing list
Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net<mailto:Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20150414/8bbebaf1/attachment.html>