Amod Malviya
Amod Malviya
Clients should be required to support `need_info` section of UMA2 to better meet authorization goals
I'm not contesting the focus on Authn, I agree with that fully. The way I understood Solid-OIDC spec and the discussions related to UMA2 is the following: 1. Solid-OIDC wishes...
Clients should be required to support `need_info` section of UMA2 to better meet authorization goals
A very related scenario is [Authorization Panel sec 3.1.5](https://solid.github.io/authorization-panel/authorization-ucr/#req-client-constrained)
Clients should be required to support `need_info` section of UMA2 to better meet authorization goals
> what exactly do you mean by non-UMA2 clients? Currently, the Solid-OIDC spec does not require its clients to comply with UMA2. Yes, it calls out specific features of UMA2,...
Clients should be required to support `need_info` section of UMA2 to better meet authorization goals
@elf-pavlik just checking in to see if any progress was made here. I'd logged into the meeting a few times after this issue was created, but the meetings weren't happening...
Clients should be required to support `need_info` section of UMA2 to better meet authorization goals
This also fits in nicely with the objectives being discussed at https://github.com/solid/authorization-panel/issues/46 I've modified the title to better reflect what I'm proposing here.
Is there a stack trace that you have access to? And/or the target url that was being opened?
I think it should be ok to expose this out as a macos specific extension of `BrowserOptions`. I'd prefer this to be a `dont_switch` option instead of accepting open ended...
@jackbackes does the change in #106 solve sufficiently for the scenario you mention?
@crackheadakira good eye, thank you. I wish I had paid attention to this detail when creating these features. I haven't yet seen reports of an issue because of this, so...