<div dir="ltr">Acknowledged.<div><br></div><div>Regarding the next errata, when should we start that process? It seems like a good opportunity now, with the certification process still fresh in everyone's minds.</div><div><div><br></div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Mike Jones <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Michael.Jones@microsoft.com" target="_blank">Michael.Jones@microsoft.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Garyl Erickson of ForgeRock identified a place where the tests didn’t match the spec and Roland just adjusted the tests as a result. I wanted to document this change and the reason for it for the working group.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p>OP-nonce-NoReq-code is about supporting requests without a nonce. The nonce is only needed when the ID Token is returned as a fragment. The code+token flow doesn't return the nonce as a fragment. Therefore, it should be legal to make
a request with no nonce for code+token. So the test tool had included the test OP-nonce-NoReq-code for both the code and code+token response types.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p>But the spec says that a nonce is required for Hybrid flows:
<a href="http://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html#HybridIDToken" target="_blank">http://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html#HybridIDToken</a> 3.3.2.11 ID Token "Use of the nonce Claim is REQUIRED for this flow." Therefore Roland just removed the OP-nonce-NoReq-code
test from code+token, because it's testing for behavior that violates the spec. In this case while common sense may indicate that you don't have to send a nonce for code+token, the spec says that you do.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p>In a related test, the OP-nonce-NoReq-noncode is about testing that implementations reject requests without a nonce. Roland and I *<b>did not</b>* add this test for the code+token flow because doing so would break existing implementations
that have already passed certification with this functionality, which matches common sense, but not the spec. ;-) We *<b>did</b>* add this test for the code+id_token and code+id_token+token flows because the nonce really is required for security reasons in
these cases. That being said, per the rules of the test freeze, we will honor any Hybrid certifications that have already occurred without these tests having been presented by the test tool.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">When errata time next comes around, we should think about whether to relax the requirement to include a nonce in the request for the code+token flow. But for now, I think it’s right for our certification tests to allow either the logical
or the specified behavior in this one case.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Cheers,<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> -- Mike<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Openid-specs-ab mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Openid-specs-ab@lists.openid.net">Openid-specs-ab@lists.openid.net</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab" target="_blank">http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>