[Openid-specs-ab] Issue #1229: Adoption of the "OpenID Connect for W3C Verifiable Credential Objects" (openid/connect)

Nat Sakimura nat at nat.consulting
Mon May 10 18:24:43 UTC 2021


David,

"claim" is a defined term in OpenID Connect Core 1.0, so it cannot be
re-defined by a profile. FYI, it is used 493 times in the OIDC Core 1.0.
It will cause confusion to the readers if we mix the usage.

The definition of "credential" seems to be a little in conflict with the
way RFC6749 and other OAuth standards use the word: it is for entity
authentication specifically. The W3C definition is broadening it up and
causes consistency problem from OAuth point of view and from OIDC point of
view as it builds on top of OAuth.

These issues need to be addressed during the spec discussion, probably in
the direction that aligning with OIDC in this spec and directing readers to
replace the words that appear in external specs in a consistent way.

Best,

Nat Sakimura


On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 1:00 AM David Chadwick via Openid-specs-ab <
openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net> wrote:

> We do not need to provide definitions as they already exist in the W3C VC
> Data Model Recommendation, so we can simply reference them. They are:
>
>
> claim An assertion made about a subject
> <https://www.w3.org/TR/vc-data-model/#dfn-subjects>. credential A set of
> one or more claims <https://www.w3.org/TR/vc-data-model/#dfn-claims> made
> by an issuer <https://www.w3.org/TR/vc-data-model/#dfn-issuers>. A verifiable
> credential is a tamper-evident credential that has authorship that can be
> cryptographically verified.
>
> You will note that the W3C recommendation does not say anything about what
> the assertion may be, but if you look it up in a dictionary you will get
> something like
>
> Assertion - a positive statement or declaration, often without support or
> reason
>
> Please tell me what is unclear about the above
>
> Kind regards
>
> David
>
>
> On 10/05/2021 16:36, Tom Jones via Openid-specs-ab wrote:
>
> And I find the lack of clarity to be extremely rude and disrespectful of
> any sort of meaningful conversation about the issues. If you have a better
> definition of claim, please let us hear it.
>
> thx ..Tom (mobile)
>
> On Mon, May 10, 2021, 8:28 AM Oliver Terbu via Openid-specs-ab <
> openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net> wrote:
>
>> This is another example of an extremely rude and disrespectful tone by
>> the same person:
>>
>> "I want clarity of language. Right now we just have a claim = some crap
>> and credential = a pile of crap."
>> http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/2021-May/008233.html
>>
>> Oliver
>>
>> On Mon, 10 May 2021 at 14:39, Kristina Yasuda via Openid-specs-ab <
>> openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Thank you, Nat.
>>>
>>> As promised, I wanted to outline the relationship between "OpenID
>>> Connect for W3C Verifiable Credential Objects" (OIDC4VCO) draft and other
>>> existing drafts. (point 2 in this issue)
>>> ※ Note that there was a proposal to rename the draft  "OpenID Connect
>>> for W3C Verifiable Presentations", but I will use OIDC4VCO abbreviation
>>> for now.
>>>
>>>
>>>    - Relationship with OpenID Connect Core: OIDC4VCO uses mechanisms
>>>    already defined in OIDC Core, and does not introduce any breaking changes.
>>>    - Relationship with SIOP V2 draft: SIOP V2 draft will refer to the
>>>    OIDC4VCO draft wrt how W3C verifiable presentations (VPs) can be
>>>    transported using SIOP model, since OIDC4VCO draft defines a generic way
>>>    how W3C VPs can be used with various OIDC flows including SIOP V2.
>>>    - Relationship with Claims Aggregation draft (and Credential
>>>    Provider draft once contributed): these drafts will be used by the OP to
>>>    receive credentials from the Claims Provider, so that the OP will be able
>>>    to present received credentials to the RP using OIDC4VCO draft. These
>>>    drafts should be aligned as much as possible.
>>>    - Relationship with DIF Presentation Exchange (PE) draft: DIF PE
>>>    draft could be used as part of the request syntax in OIDC4VCO draf, which
>>>    can be discussed once OIDC4VCO draft is adopted. DIF PE is a query language
>>>    that is protocol agnostic, and it does not replace OIDC4VCO draft.
>>>
>>> This is an initial summary and additional input from the editors/working
>>> group is very welcome.
>>>
>>> A work item to enable transporting W3C VPs using OpenID Connect, will
>>> most likely not be successful outside OpenID Foundation AB/C Working Group,
>>> because that is where the collective OpenID Connect expertise resides.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Kristina
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>> *差出人:* Openid-specs-ab <openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net> が Nat
>>> via Openid-specs-ab <openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net> の代理で送信
>>> *送信日時:* 2021年5月7日 0:55
>>> *宛先:* openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net <openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
>>> >
>>> *CC:* Nat <issues-reply at bitbucket.org>
>>> *件名:* [Openid-specs-ab] Issue #1229: Adoption of the "OpenID Connect
>>> for W3C Verifiable Credential Objects" (openid/connect)
>>>
>>> New issue 1229: Adoption of the "OpenID Connect for W3C Verifiable
>>> Credential Objects"
>>>
>>> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbitbucket.org%2Fopenid%2Fconnect%2Fissues%2F1229%2Fadoption-of-the-openid-connect-for-w3c&data=04%7C01%7CKristina.Yasuda%40microsoft.com%7C546f6f574aa946624ea408d910a766d3%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637559134036105710%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=v8JUcUVcU4A%2FlkpyB43J2%2B9DB9axNOyOGjmQAe5GU58%3D&reserved=0
>>>
>>> Nat Sakimura:
>>>
>>> SIOP SC recommended the adoption of “[OpenID Connect for W3C Verifiable
>>> Credential Objects](
>>> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.openid.net%2Fpipermail%2Fopenid-specs-ab%2Fattachments%2F20210505%2Fa198527a%2Fattachment-0001.pdf&data=04%7C01%7CKristina.Yasuda%40microsoft.com%7C546f6f574aa946624ea408d910a766d3%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637559134036105710%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=LdCCcQ1tptJ290hqLdPsJdDWACLjeswgOwEKvhBi%2FyM%3D&reserved=0)”
>>> \[1\] as a working group item.
>>>
>>> \[1\] [
>>> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.openid.net%2Fpipermail%2Fopenid-specs-ab%2Fattachments%2F20210505%2Fa198527a%2Fattachment-0001.pdf&data=04%7C01%7CKristina.Yasuda%40microsoft.com%7C546f6f574aa946624ea408d910a766d3%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637559134036115666%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=38hwxalY%2FRk1ypItq%2Bnxnhd26OE4uUJ79XUm1T8DVNw%3D&reserved=0](https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.openid.net%2Fpipermail%2Fopenid-specs-ab%2Fattachments%2F20210505%2Fa198527a%2Fattachment-0001.pdf&data=04%7C01%7CKristina.Yasuda%40microsoft.com%7C546f6f574aa946624ea408d910a766d3%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637559134036115666%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=38hwxalY%2FRk1ypItq%2Bnxnhd26OE4uUJ79XUm1T8DVNw%3D&reserved=0
>>> )
>>>
>>> Some concerns were expressed by a few WG members.
>>>
>>> This ticket is to give an opportunity for those members to express their
>>> concerns and proposers to reply to them.
>>>
>>> There are a few criteria for non-adoption of documents: namely
>>>
>>> 1. If the draft does not fall into the scope of the WG.
>>> 2. If the draft is overlapping with existing drafts, the technical
>>> content should be raised as an issue and eventually result in PR rather
>>> than starting a new draft.
>>>
>>>     1. NOTE: A non-overlapping portion can be made as an independent
>>> document so proposers should consider creating such.
>>>
>>> 3. If there is a legal or reputational risk for the OIDF in adopting the
>>> document. \(The board may intervene on this ground.\)
>>>
>>> If the issues are only on the technical nature of the proposed draft
>>> that does not fall into the above criteria, then, it should be dealt with
>>> during and after the adoption of the document.
>>>
>>>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Openid-specs-ab mailing list
>>> 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%7C546f6f574aa946624ea408d910a766d3%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637559134036115666%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=zj60E0N480Cv0Pqtne%2FbRk%2FOu8%2BJ8toFtZ6kNncNnHY%3D&reserved=0
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Openid-specs-ab mailing list
>>> Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
>>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Openid-specs-ab mailing list
>> Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab
>


-- 
Nat Sakimura
NAT.Consulting LLC
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20210511/95f8cc6a/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Openid-specs-ab mailing list