[Openid-specs-ab] Does Connect support public clients?

John Bradley ve7jtb at ve7jtb.com
Tue Feb 21 15:01:11 UTC 2012


As I recall it was Facebook and Google who were keen on the implicit flow.

Part of the argument was that it was easier to get someone to implement it by dropping some JS code on their site for the callback URI and setting the id_token as a cookie.

It is a different approach than the more traditional library one, that fits the code flow better.

I am not personally attached to the implicit flow.

However we probably need wider feedback before changing the basic client profile.

John 
On 2012-02-21, at 11:43 AM, Justin Richer wrote:

> Yes, I certainly do. It's cleaner in design, its pattern is more proven, and it can be implemented in all kinds of different clients, even lightweight Javascript ones. The implicit flow is an optimization for fewer network calls, and it's always felt more like a codified hack than a real protocol flow to me. Whenever I've seen somebody pressed on the issue of whether or not their clients could really support the code flow, they've admitted that yes, they could, but they didn't want to pay the time costs of a second round trip to the server.
> 
> We're also concentrating on the code flow for our own Connect deployment, and we'll patch in the implicit flow sometime later.
> 
>  -- Justin
> 
> On 02/21/2012 09:40 AM, John Bradley wrote:
>> 
>> No problem, sometimes even I am surprised by things that have snuck in or are left over from older versions.
>> 
>> Do you still prefer the code follow for the basic client profile?
>> 
>> John
>> On 2012-02-21, at 11:23 AM, Justin Richer wrote:
>> 
>>> Hrm. Reading through the drafts again just now, it does clearly say that 'code' and 'token id_token' are MTI, so I'm not sure where I got that impression from. My mistake.
>>> 
>>>  -- Justin
>>> 
>>> On 02/21/2012 09:14 AM, John Bradley wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Both code and 'token id_token'  should be mediatory to implement for servers.   
>>>> 
>>>> Is there a particular place that you are seeing that in the spec.  I think that is a bug, if true.   I will look for it today.
>>>> 
>>>> If the WG did want code to be the only MTI flow then we would defiantly need to change the basic profile to code.
>>>> 
>>>> John
>>>> On 2012-02-21, at 10:47 AM, Justin Richer wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> I would prefer to have the Basic Client use the code flow for another reason: the code flow is the only one that's mandatory to implement for the server. So what we have right now is advice for servers to implement something that our advice to clients say they don't have to.
>>>>> 
>>>>>  -- Justin
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 02/20/2012 07:30 PM, John Bradley wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Torsten,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> From your tickets it looks like you are thinking that the Basic client profile is for JS clients in the browser doing canvas type Aps and directly accessing the check_id and user_info endpoints.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The idea for what i't worth was that it is intended to be a Web server profile that uses the browser side implicit flow, with a simple sever side callback that extracts the fragment and passes it to the server for processing and verification.   That is why Cross Origin Resource sharing is not mentioned win that profile.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It is true that that profile could be used for a Canvas type JS app in the browser accessing the endpoints as well.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Would your preference have been to make the basic client use the code flow?   It is arguably similar in complexity at the end of the day,  but with better security for Web Server type applications.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I would probably just have the client base64 decode the id_token and forget calling the check_id endpoint.   If the client doesn't have the correct token endpoint and gives the client secret to it checking the signature on the id_token is not very useful:)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>> John B.
>>>>>> On 2012-02-20, at 3:58 PM, Torsten Lodderstedt wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I'm unable to find out whether OpenID Connect supports public clients. It seems Connect assumes all clients register with the OP and obtain a client credential. If this observation is correct, what is the reason for being more restrictive than OAuth?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> regards,
>>>>>>> Torsten.
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20120221/332de8de/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4767 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20120221/332de8de/attachment.p7s>


More information about the Openid-specs-ab mailing list