On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Farasath Ahamed <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>
> On Friday, August 11, 2017, Omindu Rathnaweera <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 5:15 PM, Hasini Witharana <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Currently I am working on making WSO2 IS OpenID Connect certified. I ran
>>> a test on requesting essential claims from OP, when the scope is openid. It
>>> gave an error saying unexpected claims returned.
>>>
>>
>> This is not an error, but a warning correct ?
>>
>>
>>> Then I inquired about this issue through the mailing list of OIDC
>>> specifications [1]. I got some information from that as openid scope
>>> should only return subject and issuer.
>>>
>>> IS 5.4.0 is supporting many claims for scope openid. They are :
>>>               sub,email,email_verified,name,
>>> family_name,given_name,middle_name,nickname,
>>>               preferred_username,profile,pic
>>> ture,website,gender,birthdate,zoneinfo,locale,
>>>               phone_number,phone_number_veri
>>> fied,address,street,updated_at
>>>
>>> I couldn't find In the OIDC specification where it mention that, openid
>>> scope should only return subject and issuer.
>>>
>>
>> AFAIK, the spec has not specifically mentioned about what we should
>> return for the openid scope and it only mentions about the what should be
>> returned for the default 4 scopes. However it is understandable that the
>> test client expects a minimum set of claims when having only the openid
>> scope. If an RP needs additional claims, it should request them with
>> specifying additional scopes and/or essential claims. So I think the
>> correct behavior would be to return only a minimal set of claims for the
>> openid scope.
>>
>
> Since the spec hasn't specifed this minimal set of claims one can argue
> that it is something specific to an RP. This is how our current
> implementation works as well. Although we could define a set of claim bound
> to the 'openid' scope, the service provider could control what it needs
> from the claims bound to openid scope by using requested claims
> configuration.
>
> Changing 'openid' scope to return issuer and sub claims only will be a
> breaking change for many existing providers who rely on the additional
> claims (some of them could be mandatory in PoV of the RP)
>
> IMO, if the spec doesn't mandate what should be returned for openid scope
> then we can keep our existing implementation as it is.
>

+1 to keep existing claims if it's not a spec violation. Seems like we have
defined all the standerd claims mentioned in the spec [1] under our openid
scope implemenation. So if someone need to remove some of claims they can
remove it from the oidc configurations in the registry.

[1] http://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html#StandardClaims


>
>>
>>> Can you please help me on this issue?
>>>
>>> Thank you.
>>>
>>>
>>> [1] - http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs/2017-August/s
>>> ubject.html
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> *Hasini Witharana*
>>> Software Engineering Intern | WSO2
>>>
>>>
>>> *Email : [email protected]*
>>>
>>> *Mobile : +94713850143 <+94%2071%20385%200143>[image:
>>> http://wso2.com/signature] <http://wso2.com/signature>*
>>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Omindu.
>>
>> --
>> Omindu Rathnaweera
>> Senior Software Engineer, WSO2 Inc.
>> Mobile: +94 771 197 211 <+94%2077%20119%207211>
>>
>
>
> --
> Farasath Ahamed
> Software Engineer, WSO2 Inc.; http://wso2.com
> Mobile: +94777603866
> Blog: blog.farazath.com
> Twitter: @farazath619 <https://twitter.com/farazath619>
> <http://wso2.com/signature>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dev mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dev
>
>


-- 
*Ashen Weerathunga*
Software Engineer
WSO2 Inc.: http://wso2.com
lean.enterprise.middleware

Email: [email protected]
Mobile: +94716042995 <94716042995>
LinkedIn: *http://lk.linkedin.com/in/ashenweerathunga
<http://lk.linkedin.com/in/ashenweerathunga>*
<http://wso2.com/signature>
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dev

Reply via email to