[Openid-specs-ab] DHS mDL RFI response from OpenID Foundation

nadalin at prodigy.net nadalin at prodigy.net
Fri Jun 25 01:20:02 UTC 2021

I’m OK keeping End-users, and keeping the “shall”. Thanks for making the changes 


From: Kristina Yasuda <Kristina.Yasuda at microsoft.com> 
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2021 5:52 PM
To: Anthony Nadalin <nadalin at prodigy.net>
Cc: openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
Subject: Re: [Openid-specs-ab] DHS mDL RFI response from OpenID Foundation


Thank you, Tony! A lot of good catches!

I reflected most of the comments, and wanted to clarify two points.


- End-user is in capital because this is the way it is written in the OpenID Connect Core.

- I think we are using shall rather than will in the Annex contribution to ISO because that is the way to express requirements in ISO.


Would you be ok with keeping End-users in capital and shall?


Kindest Regards,



差出人: Openid-specs-ab <openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net <mailto:openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net> > が nadalin--- via Openid-specs-ab <openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net <mailto:openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net> > の代理で送信
送信日時: 2021年6月15日 8:56
宛先: 'Artifact Binding/Connect Working Group' <openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net <mailto:openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net> >
CC: Anthony Nadalin <nadalin at prodigy.net <mailto:nadalin at prodigy.net> >
件名: Re: [Openid-specs-ab] DHS mDL RFI response from OpenID Foundation 


Here are some additional comments


From: Openid-specs-ab <openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net <mailto:openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net> > On Behalf Of Torsten Lodderstedt via Openid-specs-ab
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2021 1:43 AM
To: Artifact Binding/Connect Working Group <openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net <mailto:openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net> >
Cc: Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten at lodderstedt.net <mailto:torsten at lodderstedt.net> >
Subject: Re: [Openid-specs-ab] DHS mDL RFI response from OpenID Foundation




thanks for sharing the draft response. 


Here are my comments:


- the example on p7 uses „verified_claims“ syntax, so it might be worthwhile mentioning OpenID Connect 4 Identity Assurance in the document

- section how is the request sent from the reader to the SIOP? I’m asking since I thought those parties would live on different devices

- Generally: would it be possible to share more context with the WG? It seems like a lot of knowledge about ISO/IEC 18013-5 is required to understand the proposal

- typo on p2 2nd paragraph: "OpenII Connect“ -> OpenID Connect 


best regards,



Am 14.06.2021 um 09:32 schrieb Kristina Yasuda via Openid-specs-ab <openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net <mailto:openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net> >:


Dear All,


As discussed during the last Connect WG call, circulating the draft response from OpenID Foundation to DHS RFI on mDL (mobile Driving License).

We wrote it with Tony and Tom Jones, and it has been reviewed by Gail, Mike and Nat.

If you have any comments please send them by June 16th to the ML, so that we have time to reflect them before the submission deadline on June 18th.

Apologies for circulating last minute. We can also discuss the questions and comments at tomorrow's Pacific Connect WG call.


Below are links to the original RFI from DHS:

- https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-04-19/pdf/2021-07957.pdf

- https://www.aamva.org/21_4_19-Legislative-Alert-DHS-Requests-Information-for-REAL-ID-Mobile-Drivers-License-Rulemaking/


Kindest Regards,




<Draft DHS RFI Response - mDL_v01.pdf>_______________________________________________
Openid-specs-ab mailing list
 <mailto:Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net> Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20210624/60aa13ac/attachment.html>

More information about the Openid-specs-ab mailing list