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

Mike Jones Michael.Jones at microsoft.com
Thu Jun 7 06:10:14 UTC 2012


The "openid" scope already can not be denied by users.  Some scopes specify claims.  Others do not.  You'll already have to have code that is specific to each scope value without claims_in_id_token.

Users may not be given the option to deny claims_in_id_token.  Like the "openid" scope, it modifies the behavior of the OAuth flow - it doesn't request any additional claims.

				-- Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net [mailto:openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net] On Behalf Of nov matake
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 10:40 PM
To: Vladimir Dzhuvinov / NimbusDS
Cc: openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
Subject: Re: [Openid-specs-ab] May 25, 2012 OpenID Connect Update Release

+1 for the new response type.

I don't want to have any undenyable scopes.
(If user denied "claims_in_id_token" scope, what happens?)

I'm OK with both making single "id_token_with_userinfo" response type or combination of "id_token" and "userinfo".

nov

On 2012/06/06, at 5:29, Vladimir Dzhuvinov / NimbusDS wrote:

> Hi guys,
> 
> I just started work on updating our OpenID Connect SDK to the latest 
> revision.
> 
> From a programming perspective I regard this extended ID token in a 
> class of its own. To me, the logical way to request it is by means of 
> an additional response type, e.g. extended_id_token or 
> id_token_with_userinfo.
> 
> My understanding of "scope" has been that it is purely a spec of which 
> claims sets the client wants to receive, and not about the "how" and 
> "where". And this is how we had it implemented, as a set of enum 
> values that map to claim names.
> 
> 
> Vladimir
> 
> --
> Vladimir Dzhuvinov : www.NimbusDS.com : vladimir at nimbusds.com
> 
> 
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [Openid-specs-ab] May 25, 2012 OpenID Connect Update 
> Release
> From: Brian Campbell <bcampbell at pingidentity.com>
> Date: Tue, June 05, 2012 6:49 pm
> To: John Bradley <ve7jtb at ve7jtb.com>
> Cc: "openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net"
> <openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>
> 
> I'm just saying that for the simple case (IMHO) it would make more 
> sense and be cleaner to define a request parameter for the flag rather 
> than a special scope value. The request object can stay complicated 
> for the complicated and granular cases.
> 
> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 11:35 AM, John Bradley <ve7jtb at ve7jtb.com> wrote:
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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




More information about the Openid-specs-ab mailing list