<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">Hey George,<div>thank you for contributing this and moving this forward!</div><div>I wanted to chime in and report on some discussions we had about this during IETF with Nat, John, Brian and Daniel, plus internal alignment I just reached with Filip.</div><div><br></div><div>- IMO this prompt value should not have hint semantic, but offer a guarantee to developers that (provided that OP supports this new prompt value, more later) either the operation led to the creation of a new account in the context of the RP (e.g. new sub) or it errors out (e.g. user cancelled). The scenario here is the client presenting affordances clearly stating intent to the user (e.g. "Sign up" button) and ensuring that the intent is preserved regardless of errors, unintentional SSO pre-empting showing sign up affordances and the like.<br>- besides the "new sub" guarantee, which might not be easily verifiable by the client, there should be something in the resulting IDtoken proving that the OP understood/honored "create". Something like "created_at" would work<br>- adding something like a collection of "prompt_values_supported" to the discovery doc might help to broadcast the OPs support for this and other future values</div><div><br></div><div>WDYT? </div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 8:29 AM George Fletcher via Openid-specs-ab <<a href="mailto:openid-specs-ab@lists.openid.net">openid-specs-ab@lists.openid.net</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">Thanks so much for the
feedback. Duly noted for the next draft :)</font><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail-m_-3536630719421467512moz-cite-prefix">On 8/6/19 9:30 AM, Filip Skokan wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">And some nits around the examples
<div><br>
</div>
<div>- Figure 1 and 2 examples are not `openid` requests
(missing scope "openid")</div>
<div>- Figure 1 is not an OpenID Connect response_type (token)</div>
<div>- I think these figures can be reduced down to one, regular
code flow with openid scope.</div>
<div><br clear="all">
<div>
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail-m_-3536630719421467512gmail_signature">Best,<br>
<b>Filip Skokan</b></div>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 at 15:23,
Filip Skokan <<a href="mailto:panva.ip@gmail.com" target="_blank">panva.ip@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Hello George, everyone,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thank you for this note, I agree this hint is useful,
regardless of the form or shape it takes - a new parameter
or prompt value.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>a couple points from my side</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">For authorization
requests sent as a JWTs, such as when using JWT Secured
Authorization Request, a single prompt parameter value is
represented as a JSON string <b>while multiple values are
represented as an array of strings.</b></blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Aside from `resource` which is a parameter that can be
passed multiple times all parameters (with maybe claims as
an exception) should be passed as JSON primitives such as
string (scope, client_id, ...) or number (max_age) inside
Request Objects. We could propose an errata on the
specific parameter handling inside Core but I think the
interoperable behaviour we have today is that parameters
such as scope or prompt that regularly get values as
space-delimited string of values are passed the same way
in a Request Object. As mentioned the only exception is
`claims` which makes sense to pass as a JSON object and
`resource` which is allowed to be passed multiple times
e.g.
`&resource=urn:example:foo&resource=urn:example:foo2`.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">If the OpenID Provider
fails to parse the provided value(s) it should ignore the
prompt parameter value and proceed as if the prompt
parameter was not specified.</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>At the moment I believe it's up to each implementer to
either be strict in checking supported `prompt` values or
lax and simply ignoring unsupported values. I think this
would be worth clarifying in Core, since this and possible
future `prompt` values may have behaviours tied to them
and ignoring a provided but not supported prompt value
could lead to confusion.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I'd like to propose that the draft focuses on the
actual new value and its semantics and strays away from
defining new authorization request and request object
processing rules of existing parameters.</div>
<br clear="all">
<div>
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail-m_-3536630719421467512gmail-m_-2303894390680212269gmail_signature">Best,<br>
<b>Filip Skokan</b></div>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 at
14:47, George Fletcher via Openid-specs-ab <<a href="mailto:openid-specs-ab@lists.openid.net" target="_blank">openid-specs-ab@lists.openid.net</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">The Initiating User
Registration via OpenID Connect draft has been <br>
published here:<br>
<br>
<a href="https://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-prompt-create-1_0.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-prompt-create-1_0.html</a><br>
<br>
This very simple extension to the prompt parameter allows
the client to <br>
indicate to the OpenID Provider that the user requested to
be sent <br>
through the registeration/signup flow rather than be shown
the <br>
authentication screen and have to find the "create new
account" option.<br>
<br>
Feedback greatly appreciated!<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
George<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Openid-specs-ab mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Openid-specs-ab@lists.openid.net" target="_blank">Openid-specs-ab@lists.openid.net</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="gmail-m_-3536630719421467512moz-signature" cols="72">--
Identity Standards Architect
Verizon Media Work: <a class="gmail-m_-3536630719421467512moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:george.fletcher@oath.com" target="_blank">george.fletcher@oath.com</a>
Mobile: +1-703-462-3494 Twitter: <a class="gmail-m_-3536630719421467512moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://twitter.com/gffletch" target="_blank">http://twitter.com/gffletch</a>
Office: +1-703-265-2544 Photos: <a class="gmail-m_-3536630719421467512moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://georgefletcher.photography" target="_blank">http://georgefletcher.photography</a>
</pre>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Openid-specs-ab mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Openid-specs-ab@lists.openid.net" target="_blank">Openid-specs-ab@lists.openid.net</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div>