New issue: #305: Even more metadata fields to remove if they're in OAuth/OIDC Discovery?
https://github.com/KantaraInitiative/wg-uma/issues/305 In the continuing quest for simplification and OAuth/OIDC alignment as I work on the refactored specs, this seems like a biggie. Thoughts from y'all? If we go with Grant/Fed Authz vs Core/RReg, which seems to be the prevailing opinion, I really don't like the idea of including all the "here's a new definition of how you do discovery/metadata infrastructure" stuff in our specs vs. just leveraging OAuth's and OIDC's invitation to add new metadata fields. The only unattractive part is that OAuth discovery is in draft, and I wonder if it's going anywhere. *Eve Maler*Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl
Please see the latest update in the comment thread for this issue. I plan
to take an updated approach that you'll see in the spec draft links tonight.
*Eve Maler*Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 6:59 PM, Eve Maler
https://github.com/KantaraInitiative/wg-uma/issues/305
In the continuing quest for simplification and OAuth/OIDC alignment as I work on the refactored specs, this seems like a biggie.
Thoughts from y'all? If we go with Grant/Fed Authz vs Core/RReg, which seems to be the prevailing opinion, I really don't like the idea of including all the "here's a new definition of how you do discovery/metadata infrastructure" stuff in our specs vs. just leveraging OAuth's and OIDC's invitation to add new metadata fields. The only unattractive part is that OAuth discovery is in draft, and I wonder if it's going anywhere.
*Eve Maler*Cell +1 425.345.6756 <(425)%20345-6756> | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl
participants (1)
-
Eve Maler