[Openid-specs-ab] Relationship with Claims Aggregation Draft (was Re: Issue #1229: Adoption of the "OpenID Connect for W3C Verifiable Credential Objects" (openid/connect))

Kristina Yasuda Kristina.Yasuda at microsoft.com
Wed May 12 03:22:05 UTC 2021


I think we need more careful analysis when talking about merging Claims Aggregation and OpenID Connect for Verifiable Presentations drafts. I'm still finding the right words to articulate it, so please bear with me.

Yes, they both transport the claims, but as was discussed during the call, presenting a proof that you have a set of claims is different from presenting the claims themselves. Credential Isuance and Credential Presentation is different. Especially so in W3C Verifiable Credentials Objects world. Claims Provider presents the end-user with a verifiable credential, signed by the Claims Provider. Than the end-user presents a verifiable presentation to the Relying Party, which is the end-user's proof of possession of verifiable credential. and these two "presentations" do not have to occur consequentially.

Claims Aggregation is different in that it involves the Claims Provider as an additional entity. As an "intermediate OP", you do not want contacting Claims Provider everytime you present the claims/posession of the claims once you have received claims bound to the requesting client (potentially from several Claims Providers).

As the name suggests, Claims Aggregation draft covers very specific response syntax - aggregated claims. It could be used when initially receiving the claims from the Claims Provider, but so far it has been voted out to use it when presenting the claims/posession of the claims between to the Relying Party, in OpenID Connect for Verifiable Presentations draft discussion  - of course we can, and probably shoud, reconsider it, but worth pointing out.

Both drafts may use same building blocks (Authentication Requests and Responses), because those are fundametal to OpenId Connect, and it would be ideal to have the same flow for an issuance from "Claims Provider" and a presentation from "OpenID Provider", but there are several nuances why these two should be aligned but not entirely merged.

Kindest Regards,
Kristina

________________________________
差出人: Openid-specs-ab <openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net> が nadalin--- 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12日 11:21
宛先: 'Artifact Binding/Connect Working Group' <openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>; nat <nat at nat.consulting>
CC: Anthony Nadalin <nadalin at prodigy.net>; 'Nat' <issues-reply at bitbucket.org>
件名: Re: [Openid-specs-ab] Relationship with Claims Aggregation Draft (was Re: Issue #1229: Adoption of the "OpenID Connect for W3C Verifiable Credential Objects" (openid/connect))

I think at the top level there is a 100% overlap on transporting the claims, as this is what a presentation does

-----Original Message-----
From: Openid-specs-ab <openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net> On Behalf Of Torsten Lodderstedt via Openid-specs-ab
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 8:22 AM
To: Nat Sakimura <nat at nat.consulting>
Cc: Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten at lodderstedt.net>; Nat <issues-reply at bitbucket.org>; Artifact Binding/Connect Working Group <openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>
Subject: Re: [Openid-specs-ab] Relationship with Claims Aggregation Draft (was Re: Issue #1229: Adoption of the "OpenID Connect for W3C Verifiable Credential Objects" (openid/connect))



> Am 11.05.2021 um 16:11 schrieb Nat Sakimura via Openid-specs-ab <openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>:
>
> I am writing this to record what I and some WG members explained during the Monday call.
>
> With regards to the Relationship with Claims Aggregation draft, what is stated below is not correct. The Claims Aggregation Draft actually talks about Authentication Requests and Responses in addition to the registration of the intermediate OP to the claims provider.
>
> If I understand correctly, Tobias has been looking into how to expand what is being written currently so that it can also express the VC and ZKP.
>
> I would like to ask the proposers to clarify this as a lot of this draft could potentially be merged into the Claims Aggregation draft as suggested by Tony etc.

What do you think in the current proposal for Verifiable Credential Presentation overlaps with Claims Aggregation?

I guess Tobias referred to the merging of the Credential Issuer Draft (different draft by Tobias and Adam https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmattrglobal.github.io%2Foidc-client-bound-assertions-spec%2F&data=04%7C01%7CKristina.Yasuda%40microsoft.com%7C295c330fc28d4930369908d914eca5be%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637563829371343410%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=KNIlUPEouhNWpP%2FBkQzpxTHlSGEd7NmYj4SKbEVhJyg%3D&reserved=0) with Claims Aggregation.

>
> Best,
>
> Nat Sakimura
>
> On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 9:39 PM 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%2Fbitb
> ucket.org%2Fopenid%2Fconnect%2Fissues%2F1229%2Fadoption-of-the-openid-
> connect-for-w3c&data=04%7C01%7CKristina.Yasuda%40microsoft.com%7C5
> 46f6f574aa946624ea408d910a766d3%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1
> %7C0%7C637559134036105710%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAi
> LCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=v8JUcU
> VcU4A%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%7C295c330fc28d4930369908d914eca5be%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637563829371343410%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=K5XR%2FIjX22nd1f6W6%2FHJs21N8oyet3od6TnIprq0G2E%3D&reserved=0)” \[1\] as a working group item.
>
> \[1\]
> [https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flist
> s.openid.net%2Fpipermail%2Fopenid-specs-ab%2Fattachments%2F20210505%2F
> a198527a%2Fattachment-0001.pdf&data=04%7C01%7CKristina.Yasuda%40mi
> crosoft.com%7C546f6f574aa946624ea408d910a766d3%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2
> d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637559134036115666%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWI
> joiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&a
> mp;sdata=38hwxalY%2FRk1ypItq%2Bnxnhd26OE4uUJ79XUm1T8DVNw%3D&reserv
> ed=0](https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2
> Flists.openid.net%2Fpipermail%2Fopenid-specs-ab%2Fattachments%2F202105
> 05%2Fa198527a%2Fattachment-0001.pdf&data=04%7C01%7CKristina.Yasuda
> %40microsoft.com%7C546f6f574aa946624ea408d910a766d3%7C72f988bf86f141af
> 91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637559134036115666%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8
> eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1
> 000&sdata=38hwxalY%2FRk1ypItq%2Bnxnhd26OE4uUJ79XUm1T8DVNw%3D&r
> eserved=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%7C
> Kristina.Yasuda%40microsoft.com%7C546f6f574aa946624ea408d910a766d3%7C7
> 2f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637559134036115666%7CUnknown
> %7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJ
> XVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=zj60E0N480Cv0Pqtne%2FbRk%2FOu8%2BJ8toFtZ6
> kNncNnHY%3D&reserved=0
> _______________________________________________
> 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%7C295c330fc28d4930369908d914eca5be%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637563829371343410%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=ZUpNdezJeV78SAZtTfz7CSSfiWMxAW%2BFudA%2BJrgzw8s%3D&reserved=0
>
>
> --
> Nat Sakimura
> NAT.Consulting LLC
> _______________________________________________
> Openid-specs-ab mailing list
> Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fq%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Flists.openid.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2F&data=04%7C01%7CKristina.Yasuda%40microsoft.com%7C295c330fc28d4930369908d914eca5be%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637563829371353377%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=ajLTQWBZF%2FcWheTofVYKMI7w4XhBAk9%2BtW3xbDDSrag%3D&reserved=0
> openid-specs-ab&source=gmail-imap&ust=1621347127000000&usg=AOvVaw3Bh-F
> RqnYOtpjBVhuUTQkW

_______________________________________________
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%7C295c330fc28d4930369908d914eca5be%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637563829371353377%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=Iip8EGxUlsmkBOHfddG%2Bcu70JO9UIrQTGWVbP8VLe5k%3D&reserved=0

_______________________________________________
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%7C295c330fc28d4930369908d914eca5be%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637563829371353377%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=Iip8EGxUlsmkBOHfddG%2Bcu70JO9UIrQTGWVbP8VLe5k%3D&reserved=0
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20210512/93c4f01c/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Openid-specs-ab mailing list