Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Include OIDC securityScheme, format scopes and add x-correlator header #53
Include OIDC securityScheme, format scopes and add x-correlator header #53
Changes from 2 commits
92651f3
7a92b46
69c5981
9bda743
44e8b35
02c42ac
94cc561
286f2cd
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I know this is currently a WIP but, given the existence of extension grants, the
.well-known/openid-configuration
could include any grant type that has a definedurn
. Could we not give some guidance to those looking to implement this via adescription
documenting what grant types they might find inopenid-configuration
for this API and which they won't?Or is that just too controversial at the moment?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
For the moment it's been agreed to not indicate further information inside the yaml. I think there are further details regarding this in the I&C workgroup.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can you point me to the agreement that says YAMLs must not say anything about what security schemes are applicable for that API?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm checking with my collegues and it seems I wasn't align with the final decisions on this topic and all the details. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. From TEF we are align with what was decided in the TSC.
Would it be okey to merge this PR with the schemes and continue with the discussion of appropiate wording/way to put this information in a different issue?
It seems that this is something that affects all apis and we should document in the same way for all apis.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
OK, let's return to this topic later. It needs to be resolved before any release.