Discovery 3 - New metadata item for claims request

[Mark Haine]

In Section 5.5 of OpenId Connect Core it is not clear whether all implementations should support both “openid” and “userinfo” as ways for specific claims to be returned. There are cases where support for one or other only may be desirable. Assuming that is agreed then an additional metadata entry is needed to communicate what the top level claims in the claims request parameter are supported.

There is a companion issue #1227 raised to clarify section 5.5 of the core spec in relation to this

‌

Initial draft …

Add claims_responses_supported

Add definition: "A JSON array indicating the top-level members of the Claims request JSON object that are supported. Only valid when the “claims_parameter_supported” is present and true.

[Nat Sakimura]

Good point. We probably need to write an extension to the Discovery spec.

[Kristina Yasuda]

Such extension would be helpful for OpenID Connect for Verifiable Presentations draft that is currently proposing to use claims request parameter.

[Michael Jones]

The claims request parameter is not mandatory to implement (MTI). There is a claims_parameter_supported Discovery value saying whether an OP supports it or not. If you support this, you should support its parameters.

Some form of discovery parameter about the claims locations supported could be added by an extension - particularly, if the extension adds a new one. But given that claims is defined in a final specification, we cannot make normative changes to it in the specification itself.