我相信重新审视这个问题是有意义的，正如评论中所指出的，OpenID Connect的引入可能带来更多的困惑。

OpenID Connect是一种类似于OpenID 1.0/2.0的身份验证协议，但它实际上构建在OAuth 2.0之上，因此您将获得授权功能和身份验证功能。这两者之间的区别在这篇(相对较新的，但很重要的)文章中有很好的详细解释:http://oauth.net/articles/authentication/

OpenID证明你是谁。

OAuth授予对授权方提供的特性的访问权。

OAuth 2.0是一个安全协议。它既不是认证协议，也不是授权协议。

根据定义，身份验证回答了两个问题。

用户是谁? 用户当前是否在系统上?

OAuth 2.0具有以下授予类型

client_credentials:当一个应用程序需要与另一个应用程序交互并修改多个用户的数据时。 authorization_code:用户委托授权服务器发出access_token，客户端可以使用该token访问受保护的资源 refresh_token:当access_token过期时，可以利用刷新令牌获得一个新的access_token password:用户向调用授权服务器并接收access_token的客户机提供他们的登录凭据

这4个工具都有一个共同点，即access_token，这是一个可用于访问受保护资源的工件。

access_token没有提供“Authentication”协议必须回答的2个问题的答案。

一个解释Oauth 2.0的例子(来源:Oauth 2 in Action, Manning publications)

让我们来谈谈巧克力。我们可以用巧克力做很多甜点，包括软糖、冰淇淋和蛋糕。但是，这些都不能等同于巧克力，因为制作这种甜点还需要多种其他成分，如奶油和面包，尽管巧克力听起来像是主要成分。类似地，OAuth 2.0是巧克力，而cookie、TLS基础设施、身份提供者是提供“身份验证”功能所需的其他成分。

如果你需要身份验证，你可以使用OpenID Connect，它提供了一个“id_token”，除了access_token，它可以回答每个身份验证协议必须回答的问题。

OpenID是关于身份验证的。证明你是谁)，OAuth是关于授权(即。授予对功能/数据等的访问权。而不必处理原始的身份验证)。

OAuth可以在外部合作伙伴站点中使用，允许访问受保护的数据，而无需重新对用户进行身份验证。

博客文章“从用户的角度看OpenID与OAuth”从用户的角度对两者进行了简单的比较，而“OAuth-OpenID:如果你认为它们是同一件事，你就找错了对象”有更多的信息。

OpenId使用OAuth来处理身份验证。

通过类比，就像。net依赖于Windows API。你可以直接调用Windows API，但是它太宽了，太复杂了，方法参数太大了，你很容易犯错误/bug /安全问题。

OpenId/OAuth也是如此。OpenId依赖于OAuth来管理身份验证，但定义了特定的令牌(Id_token)、数字签名和特定的流。

我目前正在研究OAuth 2.0和OpenID连接规范。以下是我的理解: 之前他们是:

OpenID was proprietary implementation of Google allowing third party applications like for newspaper websites you can login using google and comment on an article and so on other usecases. So essentially, no password sharing to newspaper website. Let me put up a definition here, this approach in enterprise approach is called Federation. In Federation, You have a server where you authenticate and authorize (called IDP, Identity Provider) and generally the keeper of User credentials. the client application where you have business is called SP or Service Provider. If we go back to same newspaper website example then newspaper website is SP here and Google is IDP. In enterprise this problem was earlier solved using SAML. that time XML used to rule the software industry. So from webservices to configuration, everything used to go to XML so we have SAML, a complete Federation protocol OAuth: OAuth saw it's emergence as an standard looking at all these kind of proprietary approaches and so we had OAuth 1.o as standard but addressing only authorization. Not many people noticed but it kind of started picking up. Then we had OAuth 2.0 in 2012. CTOs, Architects really started paying attention as world is moving towards Cloud computing and with computing devices moving towards mobile and other such devices. OAuth kind of looked upon as solving major problem where software customers might give IDP Service to one company and have many services from different vendors like salesforce, SAP, etc. So integration here really looks like federation scenario bit one big problem, using SAML is costly so let's explore OAuth 2.o. Ohh, missed one important point that during this time, Google sensed that OAuth actually doesn't address Authentication, how will IDP give user data to SP (which is actually wonderfully addressed in SAML) and with other loose ends like: a. OAuth 2.o doesn't clearly say, how client registration will happen b. it doesn't mention anything about the interaction between SP (Resource Server) and client application (like Analytics Server providing data is Resource Server and application displaying that data is Client)

从技术上讲，这里已经给出了很好的答案，我想到了给出简要的进化观点