In the OpenID Connect spec the azp (authorized party) claim seems to have a contradiction.

In the ID token definition section 2 it says:


OPTIONAL. Authorized party - the party to which the ID Token was issued. If present, it MUST contain the OAuth 2.0 Client ID of this party. This Claim is only needed when the ID Token has a single audience value and that audience is different than the authorized party. It MAY be included even when the authorized party is the same as the sole audience...

But in token validation section, one of the steps seems to say the opposite:

  1. If the ID Token contains multiple audiences, the Client SHOULD verify that an azp Claim is present.

Could anyone shed some light on this apparent discrepancy? Only the second instance uses declaratory language, so I'm leaning towards favoring that in my implementation though I feel that the former makes more sense security-wise.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.