[Openid-specs-authzen] Inconsistencies in the Interop payloads?

[David Brossard]

Dear all,

It seems as though there are inconsistencies in the payload examples. I'm
using the following docs:

   - the website: https://authzen-interop.net/docs/scenarios/todo
   - the hackmd note: https://hackmd.io/gNZBRoTfRgWh_PNM0y2wDA?view
   - the github tests file:
   https://github.com/openid/authzen/blob/main/interop/authzen-todo-backend/test/decisions.json


In all cases, we use either userID or owner in the resource category to
describe the user:

{
"subject": {
"identity": "<subject_from_jwt>"
},
"action": {
"name": "can_read_user"
},
"resource": {
"userID": "<email_OR_subject>"
},
"context": {
}
}

or

{
"subject": {
"identity": "<subject_from_jwt>"
},
"action": {
"name": "can_update_todo"
},
"resource": {
"ownerID": "<email_of_owner>",
"type": "todo"
},
"context": {
}
}

Is that intentional? It would make more sense to always use owner since
it's the grammatical purpose of the attribute in the resource category. Am
I missing something?

Thanks,
David.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-authzen/attachments/20240430/d65e38c4/attachment-0001.html>