Adds requirements regarding Issuance flow with external Authorization Servers #65
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
TimoGlastra
reviewed
Aug 21, 2025
|
|
||
| **Requirement: DIIP-compliant [[ref: Wallet]]s MUST NOT assume the [[ref: Authorization Server]] is on the same domain as the [[ref: Issuer]].** | ||
|
|
||
| **Requirement: If the [[ref: Authorization Server]] is a separate entity, then DIIP-compliant [[ref: Issuer]]s MUST include the `issuer_state` parameter in the Credential Offer during the *Authorization Code Flow*.** |
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is an implementation detail between the issuer and authorization server, and i see no need to standardize/require this. If you as an issuer want to work with an external authorization, you need to arrange with the authorization server how you can link the offer back to the issuance session
TimoGlastra
reviewed
Aug 21, 2025
|
|
||
| **Requirement: If the [[ref: Authorization Server]] is a separate entity, then DIIP-compliant [[ref: Issuer]]s MUST include the `issuer_state` parameter in the Credential Offer during the *Authorization Code Flow*.** | ||
|
|
||
| **Requirement: If the [[ref: Authorization Server]] is a separate entity, then DIIP-compliant [[ref: Authorization Server]]s MUST issue Access Tokens as JWTs, compliant with the [[ref: JSON Web Token (JWT) Profile for OAuth 2.0 Access Tokens]]. The `issuer_state` value that it received via the Authorization Request from the [[ref: Wallet]] MUST be included as a claim in the Access Token JWT.** |
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Same here, this is something that can be decided on a case by case basis. It makes sense for most deployments, but if an issuer and authorization server decide to do it differently it has 0 impact on interoperability. I don't think this should be a requirement
TimoGlastra
reviewed
Aug 21, 2025
|
|
||
| **Requirement: If the [[ref: Authorization Server]] is a separate entity, then DIIP-compliant [[ref: Authorization Server]]s MUST issue Access Tokens as JWTs, compliant with the [[ref: JSON Web Token (JWT) Profile for OAuth 2.0 Access Tokens]]. The `issuer_state` value that it received via the Authorization Request from the [[ref: Wallet]] MUST be included as a claim in the Access Token JWT.** | ||
|
|
||
| **Requirement: If the [[ref: Authorization Server]] is a separate entity, then DIIP-compliant [[ref: Issuer]]s MUST issue the `pre-authorized_code` as a JWT when using the *Pre-Authorized Code Flow*. This JWT MUST be signed by the [[ref: Issuer]] and MUST contain the `issuer_state` as a claim. The [[ref: Authorization Server]] MUST validate this JWT and then include the extracted `issuer_state` into the Access Token JWT it issues to the [[ref: Wallet]].** |
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Again not sure why we this, this seems like implementation details and not relevant to the interoperability between the wallet and issuer.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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.
(reopened from #64)
As described in #62.
This PR also includes some editorial fixes that where added to the
spec.mdfile in #57, but where not included to theindex.htmlfile yet