Clarify implications of openid:// scheme. E.g., are service workers supported? Platform limitations on iOS with registering custom URL schemes.
related to #1199 that also proposes current best option..
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.
I wanted to raise our concerns around requiring the openid:// scheme.
The cases we’d like to discuss / consider are:
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 call openid:// 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.
Agreed to resolve at 08-05-2021 call