<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Haven't we already got the updated_at claim for this purpose? RPs
can request updated_at to be included in the ID token via the
"claims" param.<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html#StandardClaims">http://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html#StandardClaims</a><br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 04/02/16 23:42, George Fletcher
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:56B3C5AF.70906@aol.com" type="cite">I like the
idea but it feels like whether it's useful or not is completely
dependent on the implementation of the AS. If the AS identity
record has a "last accessed" field that I update every time the
user authenticates or SSO's then the 'last_updated' value will
almost always be different than what the client has. However, if
the identity record just has username and email address then the
'last_updated' value would rarely change and it would be very
useful to the clients. Of course real practice is somewhere in the
middle:)
<br>
<br>
Thanks,
<br>
George
<br>
<br>
On 2/4/16 1:29 PM, Justin Richer wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">You can still do all of these other things
below as well, this doesn’t preclude them. For most, making the
call at all is the trouble, not the size of the response. If I
can avoid the network roundtrip then we’re in better shape.
<br>
<br>
It’s a very small delta to the ID token.
<br>
<br>
— Justin
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">On Feb 4, 2016, at 11:27 AM, John
Bradley <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com"><ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com></a> wrote:
<br>
<br>
I see why you might want to do that.
<br>
<br>
That however release on the user being present to do an
authentication.
<br>
<br>
I would prefer to find a more REST like approach where the
client can use its token to do a HEAD of the user-info
endpoint to see if the resource has changed.
<br>
<br>
That may well be harder to do in implementations however.
<br>
<br>
Back channel calls are not that expensive compared to making
all id_tokens larger.
<br>
<br>
Is it the size of the response that bothers people, or
checking at all?
<br>
<br>
We could just add a last changed claim to user_info so that
the client would not need to process the response, but that
probably doesn’t save much.
<br>
<br>
The concern with adding it to the id_token is that people may
add it by default, and it not be used by clients.
<br>
<br>
If we add it it should be explicitly asked for as a scope.
<br>
<br>
John B.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">On Feb 4, 2016, at 1:05 PM, Justin
Richer <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jricher@MIT.EDU"><jricher@MIT.EDU></a> wrote:
<br>
<br>
One of the good things in OIDC is the fact that the claims
about a user are split between the ID Token (things that are
needed for the authN transaction) and the user info endpoint
(things that are needed for the profile and other functions
of the app). Theoretically it cuts down on sending redundant
and unchanging information with each authentication.
However, the tension of whether and when an RP should pull
from the IdP’s UserInfo Endpoint is an age old question of
cache consistency. Should the RP call on each transaction?
After a time out? When it really really wants to?
<br>
<br>
Anyway, I think there’s a simple way that the IdP can signal
to the RP whether it’s worth pulling information. If the IdP
always includes the “last_updated” claim in the ID token,
the RP can decide whether its cache of UserInfo is fresh
enough or not by doing a simple comparison on that value and
its local cache. It’s coarse grained, because you don’t know
if you care about whatever claim was updated or not, but
it’s at least *some* signal that can be used inside an
already existing structure.
<br>
<br>
We’re considering just implementing this in our server and
client, but I’d like to see what others thought of this idea
and if it would be worthwhile propagating this pattern. I
feel it’s very low overhead in the ID Token for a
potentially big benefit of live data and lower network
traffic from the RP.
<br>
<br>
— Justin
<br>
_______________________________________________
<br>
Openid-specs-ab mailing list
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Openid-specs-ab@lists.openid.net">Openid-specs-ab@lists.openid.net</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab">http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
_______________________________________________
<br>
Openid-specs-ab mailing list
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Openid-specs-ab@lists.openid.net">Openid-specs-ab@lists.openid.net</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab">http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Openid-specs-ab mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Openid-specs-ab@lists.openid.net">Openid-specs-ab@lists.openid.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab">http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>