Better representation of OIDC

Oct 13, 2025 by talynt.org 135 views

Reworking the Example of 6.2.4: Enhancing the OpenID Connect Authentication Flow

The OpenID Connect (OIDC) authentication flow is a widely adopted standard for secure authentication and authorization in web applications. As part of this standard, the OIDC specification provides examples to illustrate the different scenarios and use cases. However, upon reviewing the example of 6.2.4, it becomes apparent that some adjustments can be made to improve its clarity and accuracy. In this article, we will delve into the current example, identify the areas for improvement, and propose a reworked version.

Understanding the Current Example

The current example of 6.2.4 is provided in the OpenID Connect specification, which can be found at https://openid.github.io/authzen/#name-sample-response-with-additional-claims. This example demonstrates a scenario where the authorization server returns a response with additional claims. However, upon closer inspection, it becomes clear that the example could be improved to better reflect the OIDC authentication flow.

The Issue with the Current Example

The primary issue with the current example is that it uses the value "true" for the "decision" field, which is not accurate in the context of a deny response. In OIDC, a deny response is typically indicated by a "decision" value of "false", accompanied by a reason that explains the denial. The current example fails to accurately represent this scenario, which can lead to confusion among developers and implementers.

Reworking the Example

To address the issues with the current example, we propose a reworked version that accurately reflects the OIDC authentication flow. The revised example would use the value "false" for the "decision" field, accompanied by a reason that explains the denial. This change would ensure that the example accurately represents the OIDC authentication flow and provides a clear understanding of the deny response.

Example of 6.2.4: Reworked Version

{
  "iss": "https://example.com",
  "aud": "client_id",
  "iat": 1516239022,
  "exp": 1516239622,
  "sub": "1234567890",
  "email": "johndoe@example.com",
  "email_verified": true,
  "at_hash": "hash_value",
  "decision": "false",
  "reason": "User not found"
}

In this reworked example, the "decision" field is set to "false", indicating a deny response. The "reason" field provides a clear explanation for the denial, which in this case is that the user was not found.

Benefits of the Reworked Example

The reworked example of 6.2.4 provides several benefits, including:

Improved accuracy: The revised example accurately reflects the OIDC authentication flow, ensuring that developers and implementers have a clear understanding of the deny response.
Enhanced clarity: The reworked example provides a clear explanation for the denial, making it easier for developers to understand the reasons behind the deny response.
Better representation of OIDC: The revised example provides a more accurate representation of the OIDC authentication flow, which can help to promote a better understanding of the standard.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the reworked example of 6.2.4 provides a more accurate and clear representation of the OIDC authentication flow. By using the value "false" for the "decision" field and providing a reason for the denial, the revised example ensures that developers and implementers have a clear understanding of the OIDC authentication flow. We hope that this reworked example will be adopted as part of the OpenID Connect specification, providing a more accurate and clear representation of the OIDC authentication flow.

Future Work

As part of future work, we propose to review and revise other examples in the OpenID Connect specification to ensure that they accurately reflect the OIDC authentication flow. This will help to promote a better understanding of the standard and ensure that developers and implementers have a clear understanding of the OIDC authentication flow.

Recommendations

Based on our analysis, we recommend that the OpenID Connect specification be revised to include the reworked example of 6.2.4. This will ensure that the specification accurately reflects the OIDC authentication flow and provides a clear understanding of the deny response.

Appendix

The following is a list of references used in this article:

Note: The references provided are subject to change and may not be up-to-date. It is recommended to check the official OpenID Connect specification for the most current information.
Q&A: Reworking the Example of 6.2.4 in OpenID Connect

In our previous article, we discussed the reworked example of 6.2.4 in the OpenID Connect (OIDC) specification. This example demonstrates a scenario where the authorization server returns a response with additional claims. However, upon closer inspection, it becomes clear that the example could be improved to better reflect the OIDC authentication flow. In this Q&A article, we will address some of the most frequently asked questions about the reworked example of 6.2.4.

Q: What is the purpose of the reworked example of 6.2.4?

A: The reworked example of 6.2.4 is intended to provide a more accurate and clear representation of the OIDC authentication flow. By using the value "false" for the "decision" field and providing a reason for the denial, the revised example ensures that developers and implementers have a clear understanding of the OIDC authentication flow.

Q: Why is the current example of 6.2.4 not accurate?

A: The current example of 6.2.4 uses the value "true" for the "decision" field, which is not accurate in the context of a deny response. In OIDC, a deny response is typically indicated by a "decision" value of "false", accompanied by a reason that explains the denial.

Q: What are the benefits of the reworked example of 6.2.4?

A: The reworked example of 6.2.4 provides several benefits, including:

Improved accuracy: The revised example accurately reflects the OIDC authentication flow, ensuring that developers and implementers have a clear understanding of the deny response.
Enhanced clarity: The reworked example provides a clear explanation for the denial, making it easier for developers to understand the reasons behind the deny response.
Better representation of OIDC: The revised example provides a more accurate representation of the OIDC authentication flow, which can help to promote a better understanding of the standard.

Q: How does the reworked example of 6.2.4 differ from the current example?

A: The reworked example of 6.2.4 differs from the current example in several ways:

Decision field: The reworked example uses the value "false" for the "decision" field, whereas the current example uses the value "true".
Reason field: The reworked example provides a reason for the denial, whereas the current example does not.
Accuracy: The reworked example accurately reflects the OIDC authentication flow, whereas the current example does not.

Q: What are the implications of the reworked example of 6.2.4?

A: The reworked example of 6.2.4 has several implications, including:

Improved understanding of OIDC: The revised example provides a more accurate representation of the OIDC authentication flow, which can help to promote a better understanding of the standard.
Better implementation of OIDC: The reworked example can help developers and implementers to better understand the OIDC authentication flow, which can lead to more accurate and efficient implementation of the standard.
Enhanced security: The revised example can help to promote a more secure implementation of OIDC, by providing a clear understanding of the deny response and the reasons behind it.

Q: How can I implement the reworked example of 6.2.4 in my OIDC implementation?

A: To implement the reworked example of 6.2.4 in your OIDC implementation, you can follow these steps:

Review the OIDC specification: Review the OIDC specification to understand the authentication flow and the deny response.
Implement the reworked example: Implement the reworked example of 6.2.4 in your OIDC implementation, using the value "false" for the "decision" field and providing a reason for the denial.
Test the implementation: Test the implementation to ensure that it accurately reflects the OIDC authentication flow and provides a clear understanding of the deny response.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the reworked example of 6.2.4 provides a more accurate and clear representation of the OIDC authentication flow. By using the value "false" for the "decision" field and providing a reason for the denial, the revised example ensures that developers and implementers have a clear understanding of the OIDC authentication flow. We hope that this Q&A article has provided a better understanding of the reworked example of 6.2.4 and its implications for OIDC implementation.

Appendix

The following is a list of references used in this article:

Note: The references provided are subject to change and may not be up-to-date. It is recommended to check the official OpenID Connect specification for the most current information.