[Openid-specs-ab] May 25, 2012 OpenID Connect Update Release

John Bradley ve7jtb at ve7jtb.com
Tue Jun 5 17:35:25 UTC 2012


Per Mikes note, it will take a significant consensus to change the decision from the in person meeting.

We currently have a way to ask for the claims as part of the id_token, via the request object.  That is still there,  would adding an aditional OAuth parameter be an improvement over the request object?

The goal was having simple way to do it for basic clients.  

John B.


On 2012-06-05, at 1:13 PM, Brian Campbell wrote:

> I haven't thought though all the cases so this might be short sighted but it would seem that adding a new parameter to the request would be the way to go.  As you say, id_token is already a divergence from OAuth so it seems reasonable to have a divergent parameter that toggles the claims that go in it.
> 
> So I guess my preference would be to add a new request param (probably named claims_in_id_token) to the authorization request along the lines of what's already being done for nonce, display, prompt, etc.
>   
> 
> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 10:53 AM, John Bradley <ve7jtb at ve7jtb.com> wrote:
> I don't know that anyone is deeply attached to having it as a scope.   The idea was to not require a request object.
> 
> Scopes implicitly specify the RS endpoint.   This is sort of modifying the endpoint for other scopes, and I understand that is a touch awkward.
> 
> Would something like having separate scopes like:
> email_id
> profile_id
> phone_id 
> address_id
> 
> If you ask for email it comes back from user_info and if you ask for email_id it is in the id_token.
> 
> Or is there something else you are thinking such as adding an extra parameter?  We are trying not to diverge from OAuth as much as possible. (Yes I know id_token is a big divergence)
> 
> If people don't like the claims_in_id_token scope then lets get alternate proposals on the table quickly.
> 
> John B.
> 
> On 2012-06-05, at 12:25 PM, Brian Campbell wrote:
> 
>> I'm trying to understand why a scope was used to indicate the desire for user info claims to be returned in the ID Token? It really seems like something that should be isolated to a flag on the request (a new parameter or something in the request object). It feels out of place as a scope and will require ASs to have special conditional treatment of that one scope value (which I'd like to avoid as I'd think most implementers would). 
>> 
>> 
>> On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 12:13 AM, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones at microsoft.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Added scope value claims_in_id_token as a switch to indicate that the UserInfo claims should be returned in the ID Token, per issue #561
>> _______________________________________________
>> 
>> 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/20120605/c520f428/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4937 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20120605/c520f428/attachment-0001.p7s>


More information about the Openid-specs-ab mailing list