OIDC sub claim missing from attribute registry

[Wessel, Keith]

So, there's no harm in adding it to the registry myself should I choose, correct? Or for that matter leaving it in the attribute resolver where it is now?

Just making sure.

Keith

-----Original Message-----
From: Cantor, Scott <cantor.2 at osu.edu> 
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2022 2:55 PM
To: Shib Users <users at shibboleth.net>
Cc: Wessel, Keith <kwessel at illinois.edu>
Subject: Re: OIDC sub claim missing from attribute registry

On 3/22/22, 3:45 PM, "users on behalf of Wessel, Keith via users" <users-bounces at shibboleth.net on behalf of users at shibboleth.net> wrote:

> Is there a reason that the sub claim's encoding is still defined in the attribute resolver?

I redid all the samples and examples when it first shipped officially.

Whether you prefer to use one approach or the other is up to you, but it needs to be a decision what attribute to use, so I didn't want it "hidden" right off the bat.

I could have done what I did for SAML subject IDs but samlSubjectID wasn't going to conflict with anybody's names, while the OP code assumed (not ideally really) that the way to identify the right claim was just to look for the string "sub". That's short and ambiguous so I wanted it front and center.

People also sort of "know" what the SAML encoders look like so including an OIDC one that sort of served a purpose allowed the example to include one too.

-- Scott