search

oauth-wg / oauth-transaction-tokens

MIT License
8 stars 11 forks source link

Azd claim name conflict with RAR #119

Open tulshi opened 1 month ago

tulshi commented 1 month ago

The following came up in the IETF 120 session about TraTs:

There was some confusion about the re-use of the claim defined in RAR

tulshi commented 1 month ago

"tad": "Transaction Authorization Details" is a possible replacement name for "azd"

jricher commented 1 month ago

I suggest "txc" or "tctx" for transaction context

bc-pi commented 1 month ago

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/sA5CIPkF9k5qJ3OG7JFVtDnpZDU/

Any statement I made at meeting the other day on this topic was less an actual proposal and more just a meta comment that there might be some confusion around the term "authorization details" because it is already used extensively in RAR to mean a RAR related thing. RFC9396 uses the term "authorization details" 64 times while the parameter, claim, and introspection response member name "authorization_details" appears 87 times.

Ironically, I'm sending this from the "[ID-align] Side Meeting at IETF120" which is about divergent use of similar or same terms.

bc-pi commented 1 month ago

copied from the WG mailing list https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/sA5CIPkF9k5qJ3OG7JFVtDnpZDU/

Any statement I made at meeting the other day on this topic was less an actual proposal and more just a meta comment that there might be some confusion around the term "authorization details" because it is already used extensively in RAR to mean a RAR related thing. RFC9396 uses the term "authorization details" 64 times while the parameter, claim, and introspection response member name "authorization_details" appears 87 times.

Ironically, I'm sending this from the "[ID-align] Side Meeting at IETF120" which is about divergent use of similar or same terms.