<div dir="ltr">Mike, thanks for calling for feedback on our OpenID Provider Commands specification. I strongly support its adoption as it addresses a critical gap for modern apps seeking enterprise readiness.<br><br>Today, enterprises can enforce security controls like MFA during SSO but lack a standardized way to manage sessions and accounts post-SSO. This is especially problematic in cases where apps maintain "offline" access to enterprise-protected resources such as using OAuth 2.0 Refresh and Access Tokens without OP policy enforcement. The OP may never see additional authentication requests after a user successfully signs-in to an app.<br><br>While existing protocols like SCIM or the Shared Signals Framework can help, they introduce significant cost and complexity, particularly for early-stage apps without revenue from a large enterprise customer base. Many developers also face constraints from app frameworks, tech stack, or service providers that make adopting new infrastructure, services, and protocols challenging. As a result, these protocols are often deferred by long-tail apps that lack formal enterprise contracts or dedicated IT governance such as core systems of record apps like CRM or ERP. Given the choice, app developers would rather invest in solving a new customer challenge than learning a new identity protocol.<br><br>OIDC's success partially stems from its developer-friendly approach, balancing implementation cost with customer value. It has enabled SaaS startups to onboard millions of enterprise users through seamless integrations like "Sign-in with Google," driving both adoption and revenue. App developers can reuse existing libraries and integrations (hopefully with OIDC certified implementation!) with an increasingly diverse set of app models, hosting architectures, and service providers to have apps live with OIDC-based SSO in minutes. If an app can redirect, host a callback route, and make an outbound HTTPS request to the OP then it can integrate SSO! <div><br><div>This specification follows the same philosophy, offering an incremental path for developers to meet enterprise security needs without excessive complexity.<br><br>With OpenID Provider Commands:<br><ul><li>Developers can validate OP Command JWTs using the existing OP root of trust (JWKS), avoiding the need to securely store and manage credentials or implement additional OAuth infrastructure like an Authorization Server</li><li>Enterprises can enforce post-SSO security controls such as session or account revocation using the same RP->OP relationship established during SSO.</li><li>Adoption is flexible allowing enterprises to define required and optional commands. For example an enterprise can choose to only allow SSO to apps that also support the unauthorize command. This leaves room for profiling such as IPSIE</li></ul>By simplifying enterprise readiness for long-tail enterprise app developers, this specification ensures that OIDC remains the most accessible and scalable choice for modern identity. I encourage adoption to fill this critical gap and strengthen enterprise identity management for the rapidly growing OIDC ecosystem</div><div><br>-Karl<div><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 1:18 PM Michael Jones 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 class="msg7978896610752718653">
<div lang="EN-US" style="overflow-wrap: break-word;">
<div class="m_7978896610752718653WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">This starts a two-week call for feedback on whether to adopt the OpenID Provider Commands specification contributed to the working group by Dick Hardt and Karl McGuiness as an OpenID Connect Working Group
specification. Please reply-all by Thursday, March 6<sup>th</sup> saying whether you are favor of adoption or not, briefly also saying why.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">You can read more about the decision made on today’s working group call to start a call for adoption in the
<a href="https://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/2025-February/010620.html" target="_blank">
minutes written by John Melati</a>.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> Writing as a working group chair,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> -- Mike
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div style="border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:none;border-top:1pt solid rgb(225,225,225);padding:3pt 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> Dick Hardt <<a href="mailto:dick.hardt@gmail.com" target="_blank">dick.hardt@gmail.com</a>>
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, January 15, 2025 4:30 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:openid-specs-ab@lists.openid.net" target="_blank">openid-specs-ab@lists.openid.net</a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Karl McGuinness <<a href="mailto:me@karlmcguinness.com" target="_blank">me@karlmcguinness.com</a>>; Michael Jones <<a href="mailto:michael_b_jones@hotmail.com" target="_blank">michael_b_jones@hotmail.com</a>>; Nat Sakimura <<a href="mailto:sakimura@gmail.com" target="_blank">sakimura@gmail.com</a>>; John Bradley <<a href="mailto:ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com" target="_blank">ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> OpenID Provider Commands - proposed WG specification<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hello WG (and chairs)<br>
<br>
Karl (cc'ed) and I have been working on a new protocol that complements OpenID Connect for an OP to centrally manage account lifecycles at RPs. We have also defined an Unauthorize Command which undoes whatever actions an RP did in a previous OpenID Connect
login -- useful if an OP suspects an account or device had been compromised -- instructs an RP to "kill all the sessions and tokens"<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">We contribute the IP in the attached HTML and Markdown files to the OpenID Foundation per the Foundations IPR. <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">We have a FAQ as a note at the top, that I am including below for your convenience.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">We hope this work is of interest to others in the WG, and that together we can improve the security posture of implementers.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">/Dick & Karl<br>
<br>
<br>
<u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12pt;margin-left:0in">
<strong><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Noto Sans",sans-serif;color:rgb(17,17,17)">1. How does SCIM compare to OpenID Provider (OP) Commands?</span></strong><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Noto Sans",sans-serif;color:rgb(17,17,17)"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12pt;margin-left:0in" id="m_7978896610752718653gmail-section-1-1.3">
<span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Noto Sans",sans-serif;color:rgb(17,17,17)">The SCIM protocol is a general purpose protocol for a client to manage resources at a server. When the SCIM protocol is used between an IdP and an RP, the schema is defined by the
RP. The resources managed are in the context of the RP Tenant in a multi-tenant RP. Any extensions to the schema are defined by the RP. This provided an interoperable protocol to manage RP resources. OpenID Provider Commands are an extension of a user Account
created by OpenID Connect. It uses the same identity Claims that the OP issues for the user. It uses the same token Claims, and is verified the same way. OpenID Provider Commands are issued in the context of the OP Tenant in a multi-tenant OP.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12pt;margin-left:0in" id="m_7978896610752718653gmail-section-1-1.4">
<strong><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Noto Sans",sans-serif;color:rgb(17,17,17)">2. How do Shared Signals / RISC compare to OpenID Provider Commands?</span></strong><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Noto Sans",sans-serif;color:rgb(17,17,17)"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12pt;margin-left:0in" id="m_7978896610752718653gmail-section-1-1.5">
<span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Noto Sans",sans-serif;color:rgb(17,17,17)">Shared Signals and RISC are events that one party is sharing with another party. The actions a receiving party takes upon receiving a signal are intentionally not defined. The actions
taken by the RP when receiving an OpenID Provider Command is specified. This gives an OP control over the Account at the RP.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12pt;margin-left:0in" id="m_7978896610752718653gmail-section-1-1.6">
<strong><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Noto Sans",sans-serif;color:rgb(17,17,17)">3. Are OpenID Provider Commands a replacement for SCIM, Shared Signals, or RISC?</span></strong><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Noto Sans",sans-serif;color:rgb(17,17,17)"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12pt;margin-left:0in" id="m_7978896610752718653gmail-section-1-1.7">
<span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Noto Sans",sans-serif;color:rgb(17,17,17)">No. These standards are deployed by organizations that have complex requirements, and these standards meet there needs. Most OP / RPs do not deploy any of these standards, as the
implementation complexity is not warranted. OpenID Provider Commands are designed to build on OpenID Connect, allowing RPs using OpenID Connect an easy path to offer OPs a standard API for security and lifecycle operations.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12pt;margin-left:0in" id="m_7978896610752718653gmail-section-1-1.8">
<strong><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Noto Sans",sans-serif;color:rgb(17,17,17)">4. Why are there only groups? Why not roles and entitlements?</span></strong><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Noto Sans",sans-serif;color:rgb(17,17,17)"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12pt;margin-left:0in" id="m_7978896610752718653gmail-section-1-1.9">
<span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Noto Sans",sans-serif;color:rgb(17,17,17)">OpenID Provider Commands are used to project the Tenant data managed centrally by the OP. Groups are a common term used by OPs to manage a collection of Accounts. The terms roles
and entitlements tend to be RP specific. Generally, groups from the OP will be mapped to roles and/or entitlements that are RP specific, at the RP.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</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="https://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab</a><br>
</div></blockquote></div></div></div></div>