You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The authorization server SHOULD NOT define different content with the same scope name as an OIDC defined claim, even if it does not implement the OIDC specification.
Why?
Interoperability with OIDC specifications as much as possible
If client could implicitly expect the request content from the scope name, do not mislead
Example
✅Its OK.
scope
description
openid
REQUIRED. for all OpenID Connect OAuth2 requests.
profile
OPTIONAL. This scope value requests access to the End-User's default profile Claims, which are: name, family_name, given_name, middle_name, nickname, preferred_username, profile, picture, website, gender, birthdate, zoneinfo, locale, and updated_at.
email
OPTIONAL. This scope value requests access to the email and email_verified Claims.
address
OPTIONAL. This scope value requests access to the address Claim.
phone
OPTIONAL. This scope value requests access to the phone_number and phone_number_verified Claims.
✅not OIDC, but Its also OK( as OAuth2.1).
Not having a scope defined in the OIDC specification is permitted.
scope
description
profile
OPTIONAL. This scope value requests access to the End-User's default profile Claims, which are: name, family_name, given_name, middle_name, nickname, preferred_username, profile, picture, website, gender, birthdate, zoneinfo, locale, and updated_at.
address
OPTIONAL. This scope value requests access to the address Claim.
✅not OIDC, but Its also OK( as OAuth2.1).
scope
description
profile
OPTIONAL. This scope value requests access to the End-User's default profile Claims, which are: name, family_name, given_name, middle_name, nickname, preferred_username, profile, picture, website, gender, birthdate, zoneinfo, locale, and updated_at.
read_registry
OPTIONAL. This scope value requests access to the package registry.
❌ SHOULD NOT - Do not attempt to request access to an email claim by informing the client of the address scope
scope
description
profile
OPTIONAL. This scope value requests access to the End-User's default profile Claims, which are: name, family_name, given_name, middle_name, nickname, preferred_username, profile, picture, website, gender, birthdate, zoneinfo, locale, and updated_at.
address
OPTIONAL. This scope value requests access to the email-address Claim.
Resolved to adding a mention of OpenID scopes, and language that (lowercase) recommends not defining conflicting scopes. However, OpenID is not the only OAuth extension that defines scopes. People were not comfortable with "SHOULD NOT" language restricting defining scopes with meanings in other specs that are not implemented by the AS, as that's impossible to comply with.
Summary of proposal
Add the following description to https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-oauth-v2-1-09#access-token-scope
The authorization server SHOULD NOT define different content with the same scope name as an OIDC defined claim, even if it does not implement the OIDC specification.
Why?
Example
✅Its OK.
✅not OIDC, but Its also OK( as OAuth2.1).
Not having a scope defined in the OIDC specification is permitted.
✅not OIDC, but Its also OK( as OAuth2.1).
❌ SHOULD NOT - Do not attempt to request access to an email claim by informing the client of the address scope
References: OpenID Connect Core 1.0 Spec
https://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html#ScopeClaims
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: