0

In claims-based identity implementations, I have noticed 3 different claims naming conventions:

  1. "URI" format (ex: "http://schemas.microsoft.com/identity/claims/displayname")
  2. "URN" format (ex: "urn:google:profile")
  3. Freeform (ex: "MyCustomTag")

In my own implementations, what is the motivation for adhering to any one of these formats over the others?

UPDATE: I have reviewed the answer to this question, but it does not provide any detail as to why it makes sense to adopt any of the above formats over the others.

Pancake
  • 739
  • 1
  • 5
  • 20
  • Thanks, but unfortunately it does not -- updated question. – Pancake Jan 28 '20 at 20:40
  • 1
    It's about conventions between systems. If there is no other system then it may not matter what you choose. As long as it is a convention within the system. When there is an external provider, then you should use the convention used by that provider in order to match the claims by type. As a next step you can map claims from 'external' types to local types. E.g. google uses another convention than facebook. But you would want to have one type within the local system. –  Jan 28 '20 at 21:01

0 Answers0