Custom URL scheme clarification needed
Clarify implications of openid:// scheme. E.g., are service workers supported? Platform limitations on iOS with registering custom URL schemes.
Comments (12)
-
-
I see no issue here to discuss. I have been using it for years and it works as advertised. It is designed for native apps which do not use service workers.
The fact that the user experience is unacceptable is addressed elsewhere.
I would close this issue.
-
- changed status to open
-
I wanted to raise our concerns around requiring the openid:// scheme.
The cases we’d like to discuss / consider are:
- Support for various deployment architectures such as PWAs or cloud servers likely behind https://
- The holder has multiple wallets on a single device
- The holder has multiple wallets across multiple devices
-
As i pointed out above, the scheme works as advertised. It is not needed for PWA as those are indistiguishable for IdPs,
The wallet problem is something else and belongs in a separate thread.
-
Hi Tom, right yes I would agree
My comment is regarding SIOP V2 which notes:
“Self-Issued OP MUST associate a custom schema
openid://
with itself. Relying Party MUST callopenid://
when sending a request to a Self-Issued OP.”And I am suggesting this not be a
MUST
and we should accommodate other schemes such as https://But perhaps this was the incorrect issue to raise this in then?
-
RIght - that spec is cast in stone - don’t mess with it - SIOP is headed to be its own spec and can say whatever it want to say.
-
I’d sure hope we can discuss and collaborate further before any etching into stone occurs :)
-
Propose to resolve this as this has been addressed in PR #25 that has been merged.
-
Thanks @Kristina Yasuda I’d agree this seems ok to close based on the dialogue but would defer to @Oliver Terbu if his question has been answered
-
Yes, I’m fine with closing this issue.
-
- changed status to resolved
Agreed to resolve at 08-05-2021 call
- Log in to comment
related to #1199 that also proposes current best option..