-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 28
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
Conversation
- 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). |
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 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.
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 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
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 agree with the content, but some reorganization of pieces might make it clearer?
Co-authored-by: Kristina <[email protected]>
I guess with the resolution to remove client id for dc api, we can close this? |
superceded by #448 |
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.