Custom URL scheme clarification needed

Issue #1207 resolved
Oliver Terbu created an issue

Clarify implications of openid:// scheme. E.g., are service workers supported? Platform limitations on iOS with registering custom URL schemes.

Comments (12)

  1. Tom Jones

    I see no issue here to discuss. I have been using it for years and it works as advertised. It is designed for native apps which do not use service workers.

    The fact that the user experience is unacceptable is addressed elsewhere.

    I would close this issue.

  2. Adam Lemmon

    I wanted to raise our concerns around requiring the openid:// scheme.

    The cases we’d like to discuss / consider are:

    1. Support for various deployment architectures such as PWAs or cloud servers likely behind https://
    2. The holder has multiple wallets on a single device
    3. The holder has multiple wallets across multiple devices

  3. Tom Jones

    As i pointed out above, the scheme works as advertised. It is not needed for PWA as those are indistiguishable for IdPs,

    The wallet problem is something else and belongs in a separate thread.

  4. Adam Lemmon

    Hi Tom, right yes I would agree 🙂

    My comment is regarding SIOP V2 which notes:

    “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.”

    And I am suggesting this not be a MUST and we should accommodate other schemes such as https://

    But perhaps this was the incorrect issue to raise this in then?

  5. Tom Jones

    RIght - that spec is cast in stone - don’t mess with it - SIOP is headed to be its own spec and can say whatever it want to say.

  6. Adam Lemmon

    Thanks @Kristina Yasuda I’d agree this seems ok to close based on the dialogue but would defer to @Oliver Terbu if his question has been answered 🙂

  7. Log in to comment