-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12
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
incorporated subject identifiers from RFC9493 #57
Conversation
question to definition of
the examples only contain IPv4 adresses. But IPv4 is overaged and new systems must be IPv6 compatible. Question: should the ip address be typed in order to distinguish between multiple versions an formats? also, IPv6 address can be formatted ambiguously (see Issue #46 ) |
I get the value of relying on another established spec for subject identification, but I think there are 2-3 important use-cases missing:
In addition, would it make sense to allow something like |
@@ -46,6 +46,7 @@ normative: | |||
RFC6750: #OAuth 2.0 Bearer Tokens | |||
RFC8259: #JSON | |||
RFC9110: # HTTP Semantics | |||
RFC9493: # Subject Identifiers for SETs |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
RFC9493: # Subject Identifiers for SETs | |
RFC9493: # Subject Identifiers for Security Event Tokens |
|
||
The following non-normative example describes a Subject: | ||
The following is a non-normative example of a Subject Identifier Format of type Device Identifier: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The following is a non-normative example of a Subject Identifier Format of type Device Identifier: | |
The following is a non-normative example of a Subject Identifier Format of type Device Identifier: |
@@ -383,7 +418,8 @@ X-Request-ID: bfe9eb29-ab87-4ca3-be83-a1d5d8305716 | |||
|
|||
{ | |||
"subject": { | |||
"id": "[email protected]", | |||
"format": "email", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I would suggest using account
, iss_sub
or opaque
in examples rather than email
.
email
is a problematic subject identifier because canonicalization algorithms for email addressees aren't that well defined. In some edge cases, it's barely possible to canonicalize email addresses, as a bright example, both [email protected] and [email protected] "represent" the same email address.
## IP Address {#ipaddress-registry-entry} | ||
|
||
* Format Name: ip_address | ||
* Format Description: A value that describes a subject through its IP Address |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
* Format Description: A value that describes a subject through its IP Address | |
* Format Description: A value that describes a subject through its IP address |
I am closing this PR as we've since done major rework to the API that voids the work done in this PR. |
No description provided.