Exposing oauth-authorization-server, too #152
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
|
Any update here? |
nbulaj
approved these changes
Feb 7, 2022
|
I'll do it myself, thanks |
|
Thanks! Sorry, I was busy and could not get to it immediately. Thank you for picking it up. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
See this GitLab issue for more background.
In short, both of those URIs and compatible to each other and contain a similar document with possibly slightly different fields, but both allow other fields to be present. So I propose we expose the same document on both locations.
Current document is already a mix of both specs, for example,
revocation_endpointis in fact defined foroauth-authorization-serverand notopenid-configuration, but it is exposed underopenid-configuration. Which is fine.So, in short, for maximum compatibility, let's expose this on both paths.