Closed arukiidou closed 6 months ago
As discussed in the May 14 interim:
Resolved to adding a mention of OpenID scopes, and language that (lowercase) recommends not defining conflicting scopes. However, OpenID is not the only OAuth extension that defines scopes. People were not comfortable with "SHOULD NOT" language restricting defining scopes with meanings in other specs that are not implemented by the AS, as that's impossible to comply with.
Summary of proposal
Add the following description to https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-oauth-v2-1-09#access-token-scope
The authorization server SHOULD NOT define different content with the same scope name as an OIDC defined claim, even if it does not implement the OIDC specification.
Why?
Example
✅Its OK.
✅not OIDC, but Its also OK( as OAuth2.1).
Not having a scope defined in the OIDC specification is permitted.
✅not OIDC, but Its also OK( as OAuth2.1).
❌ SHOULD NOT - Do not attempt to request access to an email claim by informing the client of the address scope
References: OpenID Connect Core 1.0 Spec
https://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html#ScopeClaims