[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 18:27:52 UTC 2021


Tom,

"claim" is a defined term in OIDC Core 1.0.

Best,

Nat

On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 1:29 AM Tom Jones via Openid-specs-ab <
openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net> wrote:

> I have a problem when using ccg definitions with the existing standards.
> This is openID not ccg.
>
> I don't believe that your definition of claim matches the existing use in
> computer security or in common language.  Per m-w
> a: a right to somethingspecifically : a title to a debt, privilege, or
> other thing in the possession of anotherThe bank has a claim on their
> house.
> b: an assertion *open to challenge*a claim of authenticityadvertisers'
> extravagant claims
>
> Be the change you want to see in the world ..tom
>
>
> On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 9:00 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210511/940cbbb7/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Openid-specs-ab mailing list