[Openid-specs-ab] OP Commands - alternative approaches for tenancy and bulk transfer

[Dick Hardt]

If you have an alternative approach to enabling multi-tenant OPs to signal
which tenant they are acting on behalf of, I would be interested in hearing
it.

Pretending that multi-tenant OPs don't exist or should not exist is not an
option.



On Wed, Mar 12, 2025 at 3:52 PM Brian Campbell <bcampbell at pingidentity.com>
wrote:

> The suggestion has been that tenancy need not and should not be modeled at
> all in OP Commands.
>
> On Fri, Mar 7, 2025 at 4:10 AM Dick Hardt <dick.hardt at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hey
>>
>> Karl and I are looking forward to rolling up our sleeves and working on
>> OP Commands.
>>
>> While we have modelled OP tenants as a claim with a tenant identifier or
>> type of tenant, we know there may be a better model. If someone has an idea
>> for a potentially better model, you don't need to write up a draft -- you
>> can just write up a clear explanation that we can all review and discuss.
>>
>> I plan on writing up the other options we looked at for sending a large
>> response so that we can have a discussion on that topic. I also plan on
>> writing a PoC using SSE and will share that here.
>>
>> /Dick & Karl
>>
>
> *CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain confidential and
> privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any
> review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited.
> If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender
> immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any file attachments from
> your computer. Thank you.*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20250312/7ada67d8/attachment.htm>