[Openid-specs-ab] Please respond: poll on claims_in_id_token switch in the scope
sakimura at gmail.com
Thu Jun 7 07:49:12 UTC 2012
On 2012/06/07, at 16:42, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones at microsoft.com> wrote:
> This list left out the possibility that John discussed of having separate scope request values such as email_id that specifically request that sets of scope values be included in the ID Token. (I'm not necessarily in favor of this, but it was discussed at Yahoo and on the list, so should be part of what people react to.)
I will add it and send it out again.
> This list left out the suggest of Brian's that a different request parameter be defined to act as the switch that the profile, email, address, and phone scope values return claims in the ID Token, rather than the switch being the claims_in_id_token scope. If we're reconsidering all options, this one shouldn't be excluded.
Same as above.
> I don't think there had been any discussion on the list to date since the decisions at Yahoo proposing your option 1b (using a different response type). I've heard people discussing *how*
Vladimir and Nov did.
> claims should be directed to the ID Token - not *whether* they should be. I hope we don't try to reopen that part of the decision as well, especially because no one has proposed reopening it. As such, I don't believe that it's productive to discuss 1b, 2, or 3b, given that no one has suggested that they are dissatisfied with the option to return claims in the ID token - only the syntax for saying to do it.
> My two cents worth...
> -- Mike
> -----Original Message-----
> From: openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net [mailto:openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net] On Behalf Of Nat Sakimura
> Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 11:57 PM
> To: Roland Hedberg
> Cc: openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
> Subject: [Openid-specs-ab] Please respond: poll on claims_in_id_token switch in the scope
> I would like to take this issue to a closure quickly.
> These issues were discussed at F2F on May 1.
> However, that was only among the f2f participant.
> I understand the current comments are from those who were not at F2F, and implementers' comments from those implementing it.
> I would appreciate a quick response to the following questions so to sum up a bit to help the progress in this issue:
> 1. Please indicate which is your preferred way.
> a) Using claims_in_id_token switch in the "scope"
> b) Using a new response type.
> Note: on May 1 F2F, 1-a) was chosen. This is how the current draft was prepared. (cf. issue #561)
> 2. If 1-b) is chosen, which do you prefer:
> a) A combined response type: e.g., id_token_with_userinfo
> b) combination of id_token and userinfo
> 3. As a method for returning userinfo claims in the front channel, which do you prefer?
> a) Claims in id_token
> b) separate userinfo token with its metadata in id_token?
> Note: At the F2F, a) was chosen.
> Thanks for your cooperation.
> Nat Sakimura
> On 2012/06/07, at 15:29, Roland Hedberg <roland.hedberg at adm.umu.se> wrote:
>> 7 jun 2012 kl. 07:40 skrev nov matake:
>>> I'm OK with both making single "id_token_with_userinfo" response type or combination of "id_token" and "userinfo".
>> I'm definitely in favor of the later.
>> That is letting 'id_token' contain metadata about the userinfo and the authentication, and 'userinfo' pure user info.
>> Similar to the structure of the openid request object.
>> -- Roland
>> Roland Hedberg
>> IT Architect/Senior Researcher
>> ICT Services and System Development (ITS) Umeå University
>> SE-901 87 Umeå, Sweden
>> Phone +46 90 786 68 44
>> Mobile +46 70 696 68 44
>> Openid-specs-ab mailing list
>> Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
> Openid-specs-ab mailing list
> Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
More information about the Openid-specs-ab