Disclaimer: A solution to wallet discovery is out of scope for this issue
But as per last week’s SIOP V2 review it appeared that
openid:// was still marked as required. Perhaps this is just a matter of the update still needing to be made to the document but we wanted to make sure this one was flagged for revision.
Currently section 2.1 of Self-Issued OpenID Provider V2, draft 01 states:
- 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.
Without diving into alternative solutions for discovery (being discussed elsewhere), for the scope of this issue we hope to simply reach consensus with the following statement:
- openid:// should not be required but noted as an optional URI scheme.
We present this as
openid:// does not sufficiently account for the following scenarios:
- Support for various deployment architectures such as PWAs or cloud servers, likely addressable behind https://
- The holder has multiple wallets on a single device
- The holder has multiple wallets across multiple devices
If others are also of this opinion than we’d be happy to collaborate on alternative language for this section.