[Openid-specs-ab] OIDC Discovery and OAuth2 LRDD

Mike Jones Michael.Jones at microsoft.com
Thu Nov 8 17:37:07 UTC 2012


Part of what makes JSON more popular and successful than XML is that there *isn't* any usually-unnecessary metadata or introspection facilities built into the format.  In my opinion, trying to superimpose this structure on our use of JSON after the fact is both unnecessary and counter to what developers want.

They're voting with their feet and we want their votes.

-- Mike

________________________________
From: Nat Sakimura
Sent: 11/8/2012 10:12 AM
To: Richer, Justin P.
Cc: openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net Group
Subject: Re: [Openid-specs-ab] OIDC Discovery and OAuth2 LRDD

P.S. You can see how I was feeling from my blog post

http://nat.sakimura.org/2012/09/16/uri-template-in-openid-connect-provider-configuration-response/

It predates http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wmills-oauth-lrdd/

Nat

On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 10:58 PM, Nat Sakimura <sakimura at gmail.com<mailto:sakimura at gmail.com>> wrote:
It is a bit late in the game, but I do agree being able to express them in the link based structure (not LRDD though, it needs to be JSON) is nice.

HAL or Hyper-meta schema would be good.

Note: none of them are RFC however, so we need to do something in that respect.

The only reason that it is a flat thing is that there were a strong desire to do very simple thing at the beginning. Maybe OAuth discovery document is simple enough that a flat schema makes sense, but OIDC configuration is complex enough that we may want to consider an alternate format.

Having said that, there is a political issues as well. It is soooo late in the documents life cycle and as we do not want to give the community impression that we are still unstable, whether it is worth pursuing should be evaluated carefully.

Best,

Nat

On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 12:43 AM, Richer, Justin P. <jricher at mitre.org<mailto:jricher at mitre.org>> wrote:
One of my longstanding complaints about OIDC Discovery is that while it tries to follow a generalizable process to find the issuer, the document that defines the server configuration is a completely bespoke JSON structure. I hadn't seen this document before, but there was recently an admittedly-incomplete attempt by William Mills to put together a spec to define LRDD based discovery for OAuth2 endpoints and configuration parameters.

http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wmills-oauth-lrdd/

Shouldn't we be using some kind of host link-based configuration format like this instead of a new JSON document? Shouldn't we be trying to engage the larger service discovery community as opposed to just pasting something in for OIDC alone?

 -- Justin
_______________________________________________
Openid-specs-ab mailing list
Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net<mailto:Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab



--
Nat Sakimura (=nat)
Chairman, OpenID Foundation
http://nat.sakimura.org/
@_nat_en




--
Nat Sakimura (=nat)
Chairman, OpenID Foundation
http://nat.sakimura.org/
@_nat_en

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20121108/585770a5/attachment.html>


More information about the Openid-specs-ab mailing list