[Openid-specs-ab] Issue #1230: Adopt Presentation Exchange as an officially supported mechanism within SIOP (openid/connect)

David Waite david at alkaline-solutions.com
Fri May 7 17:19:44 UTC 2021



> On May 7, 2021, at 9:38 AM, Kristina Yasuda <Kristina.Yasuda at microsoft.com> wrote:
> 
> DIF PE is a finished spec in DIF and technically nothing prevents implementations to use DIF PE in SIOP or any other OIDC flow to request claims.

I may have misunderstood the state of PE - the published version says it is still a draft looking for feedback.

>  What needs to be discussed is what do we want to use PE for in OIDC and where would it bring most additional value? Once we identify that, we just need to clearly define in some document how implementations can do so in an interoperable way, because DIF PE can be complicated and too flexible sometimes as David Chadvick has pointed out. 
> 
> > Presentation exchange is a data model for representing a requested format for presentations, and for providing additional metadata for understanding the response.
> 
> This exactly why I think this is not an issue specific to a Self-issued OP model, which focuses on solving the issues particular to this model - such as discovery, registration, proving control over the subject identifier, etc.  
> 
> The main use-cases I have seen using DIF PE in OIDC is to request Verifiable Presentations, in which case, I believe reference to PE belongs to OIDC4VP (OpenID Connect for Verifiable Presentations) draft under call for adoption. SIOP V2 draft can reference that passage in OIDC4VP draft. 
> 
> >  this issue from Daniel was in part a result of me reaching out to him in _anticipation_ of this becoming an adopted document.
> 
> Is the proposal here to adopt DIF PE document in OIDF?

Apologies, poor use of ’this’ - I meant specifically OIDC4VCO.

Although someone _could_ specify PE as a way to specify what they would like back in terms of an existing OIDC request actions (userinfo endpoint JWT claims, aggregated claims, id_token claims), such a specification could face a tough path to adoption within existing deployments.

Since OIDC4VCO is attempting to request multiple new claim formats as an original effort, there is both a higher chance of success in terms the specifying the request in terms of PE primitives, and in the leveraging of PE primitives saving the working group time in determining the best way to specify the request. 

> as a way to use it with any OIDC flow with any claims? In that case, it should be merged with expression language work that has been worked on in ekyc-ida WG (openid / ekyc-ida / issues / #1186 - Expression Language — Bitbucket <https://bitbucket.org/openid/ekyc-ida/issues/1186/expression-language>). But again, I believe reference to a query language belongs to OIDC for VP draft if any.

Agreed. That may be an opportunity for the eKYC EL as well, but I suspect it would be a heavier lift - you may need to map some new primitives such as a JWT claims schema language into PE.

-DW

> 
> Best,
> Kristina
> 
> 
> 差出人: Openid-specs-ab <openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net <mailto:openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net>> が David Waite 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5月7日 14:36
> 宛先: Artifact Binding/Connect Working Group <openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net <mailto:openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>>; Anthony Nadalin <nadalin at prodigy.net <mailto:nadalin at prodigy.net>>
> CC: David Waite <david at alkaline-solutions.com <mailto:david at alkaline-solutions.com>>; Daniel Buchner <issues-reply at bitbucket.org <mailto:issues-reply at bitbucket.org>>
> 件名: Re: [Openid-specs-ab] Issue #1230: Adopt Presentation Exchange as an officially supported mechanism within SIOP (openid/connect)
>  
> 
> 
> > On May 6, 2021, at 7:56 PM, nadalin--- via Openid-specs-ab <openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net <mailto:openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>> wrote:
> > 
> > So why have we spent time on this in OIDF of DIF has done this,
> 
> DIF has not “done this”. Presentation exchange is a data model for representing a requested format for presentations, and for providing additional metadata for understanding the response. It is not a protocol, and specifically defines carve-outs for the actual request/response to be defined by separate specifications like SIOP.
> 
> OIDC has a simpler scheme for requesting claims, so the decision was likely made to model that option for the initial submission. I would be surprised if people were unwilling to collaborate on a common ground with DIF, considering the current SIOP work is a joint effort between DIF and OIDF.
> 
> > this is just another reason why we should not adopt this until we get issues worked out,
> 
> “We” (Connect A/B group) will not get technical issues worked out until we accept something as input. This is currently an external document. 
> 
> Although I cannot speak for everyone, my ability to justify contributions to non-adopted documents and to work under ‘handshake’ IPR does have limits.
> 
> > There is no real reason to do this in OIDF, any work can be done in DIF to fit this into SIOP.
> 
> I would think that changes to SIOP to support new representations of authentication and of claims are squarely in scope of the Connect A/B group. Although my employer was not participating in DIF at the time, I suspect this is the opinion by some of the DIF membership as well, hence the current joint effort.
> 
> > I'm surprised that this was not all worked out before Mike and others created this draft.
> 
> The purpose of an adopting a submission is not to have a small subset of people work on a document in their own GitHub repo without any IPR protection until they are ready for it to be a ratified standard. A side-effect of this work not being an adopted item is that I was unaware of it until rather recently.
> 
> Also, I would like to point out that this issue from Daniel was in part a result of me reaching out to him in _anticipation_ of this becoming an adopted document and wanting his input (as primary editor of Presentation Exchange). My hope is that we will reach the other side of SIOP not just being compatible with PE, but providing feedback to make PE an even more capable specification.
> 
> -DW
> _______________________________________________
> Openid-specs-ab mailing list
> Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net <mailto:Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>
> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.openid.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fopenid-specs-ab&data=04%7C01%7CKristina.Yasuda%40microsoft.com%7C8e2fc8cd654147dfb49b08d9111a1e52%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637559626199763291%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=x0qBcvHMyQzeDjzQVAh3T%2B8xRqaMdy12krBrCr3o2vs%3D&reserved=0 <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.openid.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fopenid-specs-ab&data=04%7C01%7CKristina.Yasuda%40microsoft.com%7C8e2fc8cd654147dfb49b08d9111a1e52%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637559626199763291%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=x0qBcvHMyQzeDjzQVAh3T%2B8xRqaMdy12krBrCr3o2vs%3D&reserved=0>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20210507/4d392848/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Openid-specs-ab mailing list