[Openid-specs-ab] Issue #1230: Adopt Presentation Exchange as an officially supported mechanism within SIOP (openid/connect)
thomasclinganjones at gmail.com
Fri May 7 15:32:35 UTC 2021
The problem I have with PX is that the user is given no choice on what is
released. I know that the core DID spec removed any attempt to associate
people with identifiers, but that was just the start of a process that will
make the DIF standards unusable by human beings.
Be the change you want to see in the world ..tom
On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 12:02 AM David Chadwick via Openid-specs-ab <
openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net> wrote:
> Hi Daniel
> The problem I have with the DIF Presentation Exchange is that it mixes up
> the semantic level with the syntactic level. Administrators who specify
> WHAT claims they want are working at the semantic level, and this should be
> in the DIF data model, whereas protocols that say HOW this should be
> exchanged and say how they want claims to be formatted are working at the
> syntactic level.
> It has been said that PE is a data model and not a protocol but I dispute
> this because of the above mixing of layers.
> DIF PE does not help interworking because it allows the RP to request
> claims in one format (or to not specify any format) and the client to
> return them in a different format that the RP cannot support. PE would
> serve the community much better if it simply stated which claims are needed
> and stayed at the semantic level.
> Thus I think DIF PE needs to remove all its contents about claim encodings
> and allow this to be specified in the protocol layer where proper
> negotiation can take place, or none if a particular protocol mandates a
> particular format always be used.
> Otherwise the way that PE specifies which claims are needed is pretty
> comprehensive, even if it is somewhat complex and overkill for the vast
> majority of use cases (although I admit that much of the complexity can be
> omitted if it is not needed.)
> Kind regards
> On 06/05/2021 23:33, Daniel Buchner via Openid-specs-ab wrote:
> New issue 1230: Adopt Presentation Exchange as an officially supported mechanism within SIOPhttps://bitbucket.org/openid/connect/issues/1230/adopt-presentation-exchange-as-an
> Daniel Buchner:
> [DIF Presentation Exchange \(identity.foundation\)](https://identity.foundation/presentation-exchange/spec/v1.0.0/) has now been adopted by all major VC-focused standards organizations and industry groups. As I see more and more duplicative proposals, Issues, and spec details popping up in this SIOP work, it’s becoming clear we need to regroup and reassess those aspects of the SIOP initiative. I am unclear why the PE primaries were not pulled in to ensure uptake of these cross-compatible specs, but the time is now to reorient. We can accelerate this entire SIOP initiative by leveraging the work the community has done in DIF. This is an umbrella decision that should be addressed as both a top-level proposal and individual, targeted issues that resolve the duplicative activities in favor of the existing solution - I will begin opening those over the next few days.
> Openid-specs-ab mailing listOpenid-specs-ab at lists.openid.nethttp://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab
> Openid-specs-ab mailing list
> Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Openid-specs-ab