Ok, I wasn't also 100% keen about using role.
Thinking also about what Pedro mentioned before about protocol mappers.
So I wonder that instead of introduce new "scope" concept, we just reuse
protocolMappers SPI and have special impl of protocolMapper, which is
able to deal with scope parameter and aggregate other "children"
protocolMappers and roles?
Something like this:
- There will be new ProtocolMapper implementation like
ScopeAggregatorProtocolMapper. You will define value of scope parameter
(eg. "photo" ) in the configuration of this protocolMapper. Mapper will
be ignored if scope parameter value with this name was not used.
- You will be able to define "children" protocolMappers and "children"
roles in ScopeAggregatorProtocolMapper.
- For each client (and clientTemplate), we will have many defined
protocolMappers, but just some subset of them are "root" mappers, which
are applied by default. The rest of mappers will be used just as
"children" of root mappers. So in client model, we might have:
client.getDefinedProtocolMappers() // all defined
client.getProtocolMappers() // just subset of defined (defacto root
- For example: client will have defined protocolMappers: firstName,
lastName, birthday, profile, email. Just "profile" and "email" will be
root mappers. And "profile" is ScopeAggregatorMapper for scope value
"profile" and it's children mappers are : firstName, lastName, birthday.
-- user will send "scope=profile" . Then defacto all of "firstName",
"lastName", "birthday", "email" claims will be included in
consent screen will be just "Profile" and "Email"
-- user won't send "scope=profile" . Then defacto just "email"
will be included (So for this example, email is always included even if
not specified by scope parameter).
- With this concept, we are able to aggregate many various claims into
single value of "scope" and on the consent screen have just the roots.
This would fit well for the default scope values mentioned by OIDC
specs. We are also able to define mappers (claims), which will be always
available even if not specified by scope parameter.
- For the roles, I am not 100% sure whether to include them into the
concept or not? However it seems to me that rather yes. The particular
role will be applied into token just if all of those 3 conditions are met:
1) user is member of the role
2) client has scope for the role (so current "scope" tab in clients will
remain as is)
3) if role has scopePAramRequired=true, then it must be included in some
mapper (in other words, those roles are not included directly in
clientSession.getRoles , but it's the responsibility of
ScopeAggregatorProtocolMapper to add them into token if conditions 1+2
So again, user won't see all children roles on consent screen. Just the
This will work fine with "scope=offline_access" . There will be
protocolMapper for "offline_access" parameter, which will aggregate just
one children role (the current realm role "offline_access"). The offline
token will be issued just if accessToken will have "offline_access"
permission. So if some client, doesn't need offline tokens, it can just
remove "offline_access" protocolMapper. Also if some user shouldn't be
allowed to request offline tokens, admin can remove him from the
- If some scope parameter is applicable for more clients, it can be
defined on clientTemplate.
PS: I will be on holidays and back on next Thursday 7th July. So sorry
if I won't reply immediately to next mails.
On 01/07/16 14:57, Pedro Igor Silva wrote:
> Reading all of this makes me think it would be cleaner to
> separate scope concept ;)
> A user doesn't have a scope - a user has roles and attributes. Re-using roles
> concept for the scope just makes it feel awkward and retrofitted.