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

Improve text on effective Client Identifiers #435

Closed
wants to merge 4 commits into from

Conversation

c2bo
Copy link
Member

@c2bo c2bo commented Feb 24, 2025

Closes #399

I increased the scope of the PR slightly to also change the text about the web-origin client id scheme which doesn't seem to be correct right now (see comment in #399). Happy to remove if we don't agree on that part.

- the `nonce` claim MUST be the value of `nonce` from the Authorization Request;
- the `aud` claim MUST be the value of the Client Identifier;

Note that for an unsigned Authorization Request over the DC API, the `client_id` parameter is not used. Instead, the effective Client Identifier is derived from the Origin, as described in (#dc_api_request).
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I would keep below clarification. it feels important to repeat that client_id is omitted in unsigned dc api requests

Note that for an unsigned Authorization Request over the DC API, the client_id parameter is not used.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I was hoping that the addition of 2059 would make that unnecessary. I would like to make it clear that for DC API unsigned, the client_id is constructed by the wallet and not have to repeat that for every credential format

Copy link
Collaborator

@Sakurann Sakurann left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

i agree with the content, but some reorganization of pieces might make it clearer?

@Sakurann Sakurann added this to the Final 1.0 milestone Mar 4, 2025
@c2bo
Copy link
Member Author

c2bo commented Mar 5, 2025

I guess with the resolution to remove client id for dc api, we can close this?

@Sakurann
Copy link
Collaborator

Sakurann commented Mar 6, 2025

superceded by #448

@Sakurann Sakurann closed this Mar 6, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

text about effective client id in DC API can probably be improved
2 participants