Trust Marks claims - logo_uri instead of mark

[Giuseppe De Marco]

Currently, as defined here, we can use the following claims for the definition of a trust mark:

• iss, REQUIRED
• sub, REQUIRED
• id, REQUIRED
• iat, REQUIRED
• mark, OPTIONAL
• exp, OPTIONAL
• ref, OPTIONAL

I would like to propose the modification of the claim "mark" to "logo_uri".

logo_uri makes the purpose of the claim clearer, we should indicate that the url contained in it should point to an image-like content. logo_uri intends to present the logo of the trust mark or of the Issuer that issued it if the trust mark did not have a specific logo.

We may also consider maintaining the mark claim for backwards compatibility, in which case my proposal would like to obtain the claim logo_uri as optional and a redefinition of the description text of the mark claim.

[Roland Hedberg]

mark_logo_uri would probably be even clearer but I’m OK with logo_uri. Mark being implicit.

[Michael Jones]

I’d be fine changing either “logo_uri” or “mark_logo_uri”.

[Michael Jones]

As discussed on the 10-Jan-22 call, we support changing the name to something more indicative of the claim's meaning.

[Giuseppe De Marco]

This issue can be closed once this PR will be merged
https://bitbucket.org/openid/connect/pull-requests/104

[Giuseppe De Marco]

Closed by

https://bitbucket.org/openid/connect/pull-requests/104