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

[Marcus Hardt]

On 10. Mar 2021 13:29, Etienne Dysli Metref wrote:
> On 09.03.21 13:07, Ivan Kanakarakis wrote:
> > 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?
> 
> Absolutely! :D This gives every side their favourite naming convention.
> The specification may become a bit bloated, but I think this would be a
> cheap price to pay for this.

I think we are not here to discuss about naming conventions, I think we
are here to make sure that anything we do is as useful (and therefore as
painless) as possible to people that rely on the results.

And as long as there is no userbase existing that uses attributes
different to those suggested by the OIDCRE Whitepaper, I see no reason to
even consider moving away from that.

[..]

-- 
Marcus.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 228 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-rande/attachments/20210310/6e8610b6/attachment-0001.asc>