You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The Australian CDS information security profile mandates that data recipient client calling data holders must provide a client_id parameter. This parameter is redundant because the client ID is also provided in the iss and sub claims of the client assertion JWT provided during the authentication request following the private_key_jwt method as in section 9 of OIDC. RFC 7521 implies in in section 4.2 that this parameter is optional for clients (hence that servers must accept the parameter) and that if present the server MUST validate that the value provided matches the values in the iss and sub claims of the authentication request (as in section 9 of the OIDC spec). Neither the Australian security profile nor the normative references currently specify that the server must ensure that a client_id is provided.
In order to provide clarity for all participants and align with vendor implementations and standard practises, we suggest that the documentation is amended to confirm that it is not mandatory for the server to check that a client_id is provided.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I agree that client_id is not mandatory and, in fact, FAPI conformance tools do not check it at all. With that said however if it is supplied it MUST match the client_id in the assertion.
Hi @WestpacOpenBanking, as you correctly point out, the normative standards specify that if the client_id is provided it must be validated by the DH. The CDS has required ADRs to provide this parameter since the earliest version of the InfoSec profile so changing it now will impact all ADRs.
Making this optional would not achieve any change for DHs in any event, because DHs would still need to implement the checks to validate the client_id when presented by the ADR.
This change request doesn't appear to result in any material benefit to DHs whilst having the client_id currently set to mandatory ensures DHs can reliably check the presence of the parameter, or error.
Description
The Australian CDS information security profile mandates that data recipient client calling data holders must provide a
client_id
parameter. This parameter is redundant because the client ID is also provided in the iss and sub claims of the client assertion JWT provided during the authentication request following the private_key_jwt method as in section 9 of OIDC. RFC 7521 implies in in section 4.2 that this parameter is optional for clients (hence that servers must accept the parameter) and that if present the server MUST validate that the value provided matches the values in the iss and sub claims of the authentication request (as in section 9 of the OIDC spec). Neither the Australian security profile nor the normative references currently specify that the server must ensure that aclient_id
is provided.Area Affected
The Data Recipients calling Data Holders section.
Change Proposed
In order to provide clarity for all participants and align with vendor implementations and standard practises, we suggest that the documentation is amended to confirm that it is not mandatory for the server to check that a
client_id
is provided.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: