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

Mike Jones Michael.Jones at microsoft.com
Wed Aug 12 02:36:04 UTC 2015


Answering your actual question, clients today are free to use software_statement but servers are also free to ignore it – just like any other parameters that they do not understand.

However, the MODRNA profile can mandate support for the RFC 7591 software_statement in clients and servers supporting that profile – and it can do so without us updating the OpenID Connect Dynamic Client Registration spec.  I suspect the profile would need to do more than mandating support – it would also probably have to say some things about how to determine whether to trust the software_statement for what purposes based on who signed it.  That additional trust work goes beyond both of the dyn-reg specs, and is new work.

What are MODRNA’s thoughts on how to do that?

                                                            -- Mike

From: Torsten Lodderstedt [mailto:torsten at lodderstedt.net]
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 4:17 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,

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<mailto: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> [mailto:torsten at lodderstedt.net]
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 5:05 AM
To: Mike Jones
Cc: openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net<mailto: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<mailto: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>



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20150812/a71082a6/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Openid-specs-ab mailing list