Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

client_metadata section (text & references) #251

Open
c2bo opened this issue Sep 6, 2024 · 0 comments
Open

client_metadata section (text & references) #251

c2bo opened this issue Sep 6, 2024 · 0 comments

Comments

@c2bo
Copy link
Member

c2bo commented Sep 6, 2024

Client Metadata is first introduced in Section 5 without referencing the section where it is/should be defined (Section 9). jwks and jwks_uri are also used without mentioning that section.

client_metadata is mentioned the first time with this text:

Depending on the Client Identifier Scheme, the Verifier can communicate a JSON object with its metadata using the client_metadata parameter which contains name/value pairs defined in Section 4.3 and Section 2.1 of the OpenID Connect Dynamic Client Registration 1.0 [OpenID.Registration] specification as well as [RFC7591].

which is a lot more detailed than the text for client_metadata in section 9:

To convey Verifier metadata, Client metadata defined in Section 2 of [RFC7591] is used.

I would propose to extend the text in section 9 and reference it when client_metadata is introduced in Section 5. It might also make sense to explicitly mention jwks and jwks_uri in section 9 next to vp_token (it is mentioned via the reference, but this would make implementers life probably easier).


original comment:

When reading the text I started wondering if our references for client_metadata need a bit of work though: jwks and jwks_uri is used throughout the text but does not reference section 9 where client_metadata is formally introduced with the reference to DCR. I think we should reference section 9 at least once (which is only referenced for vp_token right now). I guess that should be a separate issue/PR?

Originally posted by @c2bo in #242 (review)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants