[Openid-specs-ab] I'm planning to start applying errata edits to OpenID Connect

John Bradley ve7jtb at ve7jtb.com
Wed Aug 12 02:22:32 UTC 2015


Right ,  doing a 1.0 eratta is not mutually exclusive to also doing a 1.1
registration spec.
On Aug 11, 2015 11:15 PM, "Mike Jones" <Michael.Jones at microsoft.com> wrote:

> I think that’s a 1.1 spec.  Let’s do the 1.0 errata first.
>
>
>
>                                                             -- Mike
>
>
>
> *From:* John Bradley [mailto:ve7jtb at ve7jtb.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 11, 2015 4:15 PM
> *To:* Torsten Lodderstedt
> *Cc:* Mike Jones; openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
> *Subject:* Re: [Openid-specs-ab] I'm planning to start applying errata
> edits to OpenID Connect
>
>
>
> I think the goal should be to have something that is legal in the OAuth
> registration spec be legal and supported in Connect.
>
>
>
> However that probably takes more than we can do in an errata.
>
>
>
> We probably do need to do a updated registration spec if we want to add
> new functionality and have it in the conformance test.
>
>
>
> John B.
>
> On Aug 11, 2015, at 8:17 AM, Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten at lodderstedt.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Mike,
>
>
>
> I'm a bit surprised about the approach, but we will give it a try.
>
>
>
> One question worries me so I would like to sort it our beforehand: let's
> suppose a OP allows to pass all relevant parameter to the client
> registration request in a software statement (instead of separate URI
> request parameters) as specified by RFC 7591. Would you consider this
> behavior compliant to the OpenID Dynamic Client Registration spec? Will we
> extend the OpenID conformance tests accordingly?
>
> kind regards,
>
> Torsten.
>
>
> Am 29.07.2015 um 17:37 schrieb Mike Jones <Michael.Jones at microsoft.com>:
>
> We’re not going to do major changes as part of an errata action, so we’re
> not going to remove the now-duplicated content.  That said, we will add a
> statement that the OpenID Registration spec is compatible with the OAuth
> Registration spec and that implementations are free to use features defined
> there such as software statements as appropriate.  Would that work for you?
>
>
>
>                                                             -- Mike
>
>
>
> *From:* torsten at lodderstedt.net [mailto:torsten at lodderstedt.net
> <torsten at lodderstedt.net>]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 29, 2015 5:05 AM
> *To:* Mike Jones
> *Cc:* openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
> *Subject:* Re: [Openid-specs-ab] I'm planning to start applying errata
> edits to OpenID Connect
>
>
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> good to hear.
>
> Regarding Dynamic Client Registration: Will you modify the OpenID Connect
> Spec to be based on RFC 7591? I'm asking because the OIDC Client
> Registration could be strip down (e.g. by removing the definition of
> registration request/response). Moreover, this would allow the OIDC version
> to leverage software statements, which are required for the MODRNA work.
>
> best regards,
> Torsten.
>
> Am 24.07.2015 20:14, schrieb Mike Jones:
>
> I wanted to let you know that I plan to start applying errata edits to the
> OpenID Connect specifications.  These edits will include:
>
> ·        Referencing the JOSE, JWT, OAuth Assertions, and acct URI RFCs
> instead of working group drafts
>
> ·        Registering the Connect-specific Dynamic Registration metadata
> values in the registry established by RFC 7591
>
> ·        Removing the warning about the Google “iss” value currently in
> Section 15.6.2
>
> ·        Addressing typos described in the issue tracker
>
>
>
> If you know of other issues that we need to address as errata, please add
> them to the issue tracker at
> https://bitbucket.org/openid/connect/issues?status=new&status=open
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fbitbucket.org%2fopenid%2fconnect%2fissues%3fstatus%3dnew%26status%3dopen&data=01%7c01%7cMichael.Jones%40microsoft.com%7c31bcba812779461de4dc08d2980df30d%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=HXg%2bwHa8bJiF7SLAJUyFK0Lwp6SBXdWE27KLYYiXmHM%3d>
>  using the milestone “Errata”.
>
>
>
> Note that I’ll first publish the updated drafts to
> http://openid.bitbucket.org/
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fopenid.bitbucket.org%2f&data=01%7c01%7cMichael.Jones%40microsoft.com%7c31bcba812779461de4dc08d2980df30d%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=vcv4rTg9svF8fZYynqgEF7oV3N%2bEt2oVn0Tu%2bcrkJa8%3d>
>  for review.  Also, I think we should wait until
> draft-ietf-jose-jwk-thumbprint
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2ftools.ietf.org%2fhtml%2fdraft-ietf-jose-jwk-thumbprint-08&data=01%7c01%7cMichael.Jones%40microsoft.com%7c31bcba812779461de4dc08d2980df30d%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=Abm%2brWGKRUjm0nf0zVUsAIdo%2b47JvLs54T2WDVPat%2fY%3d>
>  exits the RFC Editor queue and becomes an RFC before we call this second
> errata round done.
>
>
>
>                                                             -- Mike
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Openid-specs-ab mailing list
>
> Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
>
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2flists.openid.net%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2fopenid-specs-ab&data=01%7c01%7cMichael.Jones%40microsoft.com%7c31bcba812779461de4dc08d2980df30d%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=TCG5eGRf7Z73v3O1CdCcVLBp6kXmee66VK2fV9iAD8w%3d>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openid-specs-ab mailing list
> Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20150812/82ac2062/attachment.html>


More information about the Openid-specs-ab mailing list