Additional metadata fields for Client Identifier Documents
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Bikeshed
- Stars
- 26
- Forks
- 14
- PR merge metrics
- No merged PRs in 30d
Description
I've been reading through some issues and other specifications, and I'm wondering if it would make sense or be possible for us to define some additional fields for the Client Identifier documents. In the SAI working group, they have the concept of an application description and application author. I think the latter is covered by the contacts field in the Client Identifier documents, but the former, a description of the client is currently only kind of covered by the client_uri value (the homepage).
I think it'd make sense to add a string value of client_description to the client identifier documents, I'm not sure if this is something this spec can do, as from what I understand it, the fields need to be registered in the IANA Registry, however, I think from a user perspective, being able to see a short textual description of the application may be helpful when displaying the consent screen.
This would, I think, reduce the gap between solid-oidc and SAI's need for an application profile document, as noted in https://github.com/solid/data-interoperability-panel/issues/210#issuecomment-953736998
(addendum: I did try to find an existing issue prior to opening this one, but didn't find anything that concretely was this specifically).
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start by reviewing the Client Identifier document metadata and the linked IANA OAuth client metadata registry entry. Then compare the proposed client_description with the SAI application profile discussion linked in the issue; done would require an agreed specification change and confirmation of the registration path.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Domain
- authentication
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 35/100