Closed jpengar closed 1 year ago
I'm ok with the proposal. This will give us a short term solution. Let's close the issue for now. However, I would like to get the recommendation of OIDF, once they have finalized their liaison with Camara. Hope that this is ok with you.
OK, I've updated PR #75 accordingly.
PR #75 has been merged. As agreed in the last workgroup calls (04/10 and 18/10), issue #32 will be closed and the discussion on mid-term alternatives will be continued in a separate issue, starting a "clean" discussion, as this issue is already too long on github.
So I encourage you to open a new issue(s) with any possible proposal for the best technical solution to declare the purpose when accessing CAMARA APIs in the future.
Hopefully we will get the recommendations from OIDF in this new issue/s, once they have finalized their liaison with CAMARA.
After some days already from last working group call, I'm closing the issue as per comment above.
Problem description
CC @sebdewet
Hi,
regarding the concept of purpose, we (Orange) would like to correctly understand the benefits to add the purposes to the OIDC standard. We already have a group component using the standard and there will be impacts in this case. Our understanding is that if purpose is studied/proposed, it means that the standard with scopes isn't sufficient for all the use case needed in the camara perimeter. However, we currently don't know which use case won't be covered by the standard. Or is it just in order to "provides a human-friendly description" ? We also wonder if adding the purpose would complicate the standard with another layer to define, administer, manage changes, agree on vocabulary etc.
thank you in advance for the clarifications
Additional context This is a technical challenge open to discussion.