[Openid-specs-ab] Special spec call notes 15-Jun-12

Mike Jones Michael.Jones at microsoft.com
Fri Jun 15 17:11:36 UTC 2012


Special spec call notes 15-Jun-12

Special call about syntax for requesting claims in the ID Token

Nat Sakimura
Nov Matake
Brian Campbell
Justin Richer
Amanda Anganes
Sascha Preibisch
Mike Jones
Ryo Ito
Roland Hedberg
George Fletcher

Agenda:
               Requesting claims in the ID Token
               Enabling the use of URIs as OAuth client_id values
               Call scheduling

Nat prepared a document with the possible set of choices before the call:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Z2FfbvPm-N3pdrpoWsBrVATz43QbMvLs2y6tdmhUT2Q/edit?pli=1

There was significant discussion of the choices, some of which is captured below

There is consensus that we need the ability to return claims in the ID Token

We already have a means of requesting claims in the ID Token via the OpenID Request Object
               This wasn't clear to Brian, Justin, and Roland
               We probably need to add an example

Brian:    He is displaying scope values to the user for approval
Nat:       Concurred that IdPs may authorize release of claims based upon scope values
Brian:    Argued that the openid scope is an authorization for SSO, and so can be approved too
Justin:    Also said that he's displaying scope-based requests to the user
Mike:     The openid scope modifies the behavior of the OAuth request as a switch
Nat:       The claims_in_id_token scope is a pure switch
Mike:     There is the need to authorize the release of claims not requested by scopes
Brian:    In some enterprise contexts, consent to release claims is implicit
Roland: Release of claims should require consent in SAML as well
               This was discussed in the higher ed community

Justin:    Putting claims in the ID Token is an advanced use case
Mike:     Claims in the ID Token is simpler than claims in UserInfo endpoint - UserInfo is the advanced case
George:               ID Tokens were designed to be small - not all claims are needed for session management
Mike:     Claims in ID Token may be the primary way requests are made
Justin:    Mitre plans to use the UserInfo endpoint primarily
Nov:      Claims in ID Token is not a major use case
Sascha: Claims in ID Token are designed just for session state

Nat:       Does returning claims in ID token warrant additional scope values?
               Most people said "no" based on an IETF-style "hum"

Therefore, we will remove the claims_in_id_token scope value
               Claims in the ID Token can still be requested using the OpenID Request Object

====

Enabling the use of URIs as OAuth client_id values:
               Mike:     Raised the issue of including colons in OAuth client_ids
               Brian:    Agreed that colon should not be disallowed
               Justin:    Suggested that the client_id always be encoded when using HTTP Basic
                              He said so on the OAuth list
               Others also agreed that this is important

Call scheduling
               We will move the Thursday call to this time (7am Pacific)
               This time works better for Europeans and some US East Coast participants
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20120615/dc06759b/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Openid-specs-ab mailing list