[openid-specs-rande] SAML to OIDC mapping specification

[Marcus Hardt]

Hi Ivan,

thanks for bringing this up... because I feel misunderstood.

From my own bias the OIDC world is snake_case.

From my own bias we only have the early adopters.

I think it would be important and useful to understand what other
claims are used in this context.  Once we know what is already around
(e.g. by linking into not-so-random code repos), we can hope that:

- there is only one scheme used
- if not: the schemes are easy to translate

If all else fails: we should involve the stakeholders to discuss the
sensible way to move on.

Marcus.


On 09. Mar 2021 14:07, Ivan Kanakarakis wrote:
> Hello everyone,
> 
> this may sound controversial - you were warned!
> 
> I can understand how it is nicer to have a single set of claims, but ..
> if there is no reason to define one form and not the other,
> and the choice is purely aesthetics or convention,
> then why don't we define both forms as equivalent (aliases)
> and thus support the current behaviour of all systems?
> 
> Some systems will release snake_case, some CamelCase, and some a mix.
> Internally the systems should change to map the form they already
> process (which should be trivial).
> Everyone is happy to use the form they like.
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> -- 
> Ivan Kanakarakis - sunet.se
> -- 
> openid-specs-rande mailing list
> openid-specs-rande at lists.openid.net
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-rande
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4805 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-rande/attachments/20210309/ba18ab2e/attachment.p7s>