[Openid-specs-ab] Review Comments on Discovery

John Bradley ve7jtb at ve7jtb.com
Thu Nov 7 01:57:47 UTC 2013


NewStar has relaunched iNames as cloudID.   I think the reserved @ and ! are dead but = may still be worth special casing.   @ may also be worth reserving as a start character if twitter ever shows any interest.


On Nov 6, 2013, at 5:41 PM, Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten at lodderstedt.net> wrote:

> Hi Mike,
> 
> here are my comments (some of them have already been discussed during the meeting on Sunday). Note: For your convenience, I also attached the word file containing my comments.
> 
> regards,
> Torsten.
> 
> -----
> 
> Sections 2 & 4 describe a discovery process composed of three (mostly optional) steps (issuer discovery, create config URI, retrieve config data). I think it would be helpful to describe the whole process first, before diving into the details. This would support the reader to get guidance and allow to point out optional and mandatory parts of this spec.
> 
> section 2 heading - [already discussed] Isn’t this section about the discovery of the OP’s issuer URI? This should be spelled out. I got screwed since I thought the URI discovered here is directly used to retrieve config data. I may not be the only one.
> 
> 2.1.1.
> 
> 1. step - Why is XRI mention given all input must be a URI? I thought XRIs are a super-set of URIs.
> 
> 2. step - Seems the URI must always contain an authority component? I think this should be stated explicitly.
> 
> 2.1.2
> 
> This is stuff is hard to read and understand. Some example strings would be helpful for the reader. This would also lay a bridge to the next section.
> 
> "A string of any other type" - What ist he other type you refer to? Any other than a URI?
> 
> "2. If the userinfo component is present " - What about the host?
> 
> 3.
> 
> "issuer" - Is this value required to be the same as the issuer URI (possibly) discovered by the process described in section 2? [already discussed, yes]
> 
> "authorization_endpoint
> OPTIONAL. URL of the OP's Authentication and Authorization Endpoint" - This endpoint is also the OAuth 2.0 authz endpoint, this should be mentioned (as for the following parameter).
> 
> "userinfo_endpoint"
> "This URL MUST use the https scheme and MAY contain port, path, and query parameter components. " - I think this particular normative text should be given in the core, only. Otherwise we end up with normative text regarding a certain concept spread/copied over the OIDC document suite, which makes maintaining consistence more difficult.
> 
> "scopes_supported
> ... The server MUST support the openid scope value. " - See above, this is not about discovery. I think it should at most be a note, but I would prefer a reference to the respective section in core.
> 
> "response_types_supported
> ... Dynamic OpenID Providers MUST support the code, id_token, and the token id_token response type values." - Same here, could refer to the MTI section in core.
> 
> grant_types_supported
> ... Dynamic OpenID Providers MUST support the authorization_code and implicit grant type values and MAY support the urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:jwt-bearer grant type defined in JSON Web Token (JWT) Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization Grants [OAuth.JWT]." - Same here. Moreover, I’m surprised this text mentions the JWT Bearer token profile. This is not even mentioned in core. What is the rationale?
> 
> "subject_types_supported
> ... Valid types include pairwise and public." - Are there other types envisioned?
> 
> "... The algorithm RS256 MUST be included. The value none MAY be supported, but MUST only be used with the Authorization Code Flow." - Normative text on non-discovery aspects again. I would suggest to make it a note or a reference instead.
> 
> "request_object_encryption_alg_values_supported
> ... Authorization Server ..." - I would suggest to call it “OP” consistently.
> 
> "token_endpoint_auth_methods_supported
> OPTIONAL. JSON array containing a list of authentication methods supported by this Token Endpoint. The options are client_secret_post, client_secret_basic, client_secret_jwt, and private_key_jwt, ... " - Same here about normative text
> 
> "request_uri_parameter_supported
> OPTIONAL. Boolean value specifying whether the OP supports use of the request_uri parameter, with true indicating support. If omitted, the default value is true. " - I’m wondering why the default is different for request object and reference. I would expect false for both of them.
> 
> 4.
> 
> "This step is OPTIONAL. The OpenID Provider endpoints and configuration information MAY be obtained out-of-band." - I’m wondering why this is optional as I consider this the main part of discovery. Or does it refer to derivation of the config URI based on the issuer URI? Then I would suggest to change section heading to something like “Deriving OpenID Provider Config URI”. This might also require to push 4.1. to the top level.
> 
> ".. Providers supporting discovery MUST support receiving WebFinger requests via TLS" - Is this statement misplaced. As it refers to WebFinger, it might belong to section 2?
> <Draft  OpenID Connect Discovery 1.0 - draft 19_tlt.docx>_______________________________________________
> Openid-specs-ab mailing list
> Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4507 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20131106/73f45c04/attachment.p7s>


More information about the Openid-specs-ab mailing list