Skip to content

Conversation

@maartenba
Copy link
Member

I know it's been a while since you logged #367, but is this what you were thinking of @AndersAbel?
Not entirely sure about location in the docs hierarchy but this seemed most logical (but not fully).

Fixes #367

@maartenba maartenba added this to the 2026-Q1 milestone Jan 16, 2026
@maartenba maartenba self-assigned this Jan 16, 2026
@maartenba maartenba changed the title Mb/schemes Scheme Names Jan 16, 2026
@maartenba
Copy link
Member Author

Also do we want to include the 2FA scheme from ASP.NET Identity?

Copy link
Member

@wcabus wcabus left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM!

@maartenba maartenba merged commit c49d4e5 into main Jan 16, 2026
4 of 5 checks passed
@maartenba maartenba deleted the mb/schemes branch January 16, 2026 13:39
| Feature | Standalone IdentityServer | With ASP.NET Identity |
| :----------------------- | :---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | :------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| **Main Auth Cookie** | `"idsrv"`<br/>(`IdentityServerConstants.DefaultCookieAuthenticationScheme`) | `"Identity.Application"`<br/>(`IdentityConstants.ApplicationScheme`) |
| **External Auth Cookie** | `"idsrv.external"`<br/>(`IdentityServerConstants.ExternalCookieAuthenticationScheme`) | `"Identity.External"`<br/>(`IdentityConstants.ExternalScheme`) |
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

See above.

@AndersAbel
Copy link
Member

@maartenba You're too fast on the merge button... please see review comments.

Also I want to bring up another idea I had in the past: In the IdentityServer AddIdentity method I think we should tap into the scheme collection and remove the idsrv and Identity.External cookies. With the current code, those non-used scheme are still configured. So if anyone incorrectly uses those scheme names when setting configuration it will not fail, because the schemes exist. If we removed them, any incorrect code would instead fail.

@maartenba
Copy link
Member Author

Updating as we speak!

@maartenba
Copy link
Member Author

@AndersAbel fix PR -> #981

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Scheme names

5 participants