[Openid-specs-ab] Feedback on UserInfo schema
Michael.Jones at microsoft.com
Wed Mar 6 18:56:33 UTC 2013
I would be fine with having both phone number claims. "formatted_phone_number" could be the display form (just like "formatted" is the address display form) and "phone_number" could be an RFC 3966 phone number. The "phone" scope would request both.
What claim names is Google actually using for these values today?
What do others think?
From: openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net [mailto:openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net] On Behalf Of Breno de Medeiros
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 9:15 AM
To: openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
Subject: [Openid-specs-ab] Feedback on UserInfo schema
Google returns phone numbers in two different formats: The display-friendly displayable format that follows the user preferences on how they see the number, and a standard-compliant form for machines.
The UserInfo spec documents a 'phone_number' field that appears to try to be both. It's the user 'preferred' phone number (indicating some allowance for display-friendliness) and then only RECOMMENDS format compliance.
Option 1. Define two fields: display_phone_number and std_phone_number, where the latter MUST be in the E164 or RFC3966 (the latter deals with phone extensions as well).
Option 2. Clarify the current language by replacing RECOMMENDED with MUST if the desire is to support machine use cases
Option 3. Clarity the current language by saying that this is for display purposes only.
Openid-specs-ab mailing list
Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
More information about the Openid-specs-ab