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

Tobias Looker tobias.looker at mattr.global
Thu May 13 03:01:54 UTC 2021


> I would also like to hear from Tobias.

In my opinion the conceptual relationship here is that:

1. The Claims aggregation draft is proposing a new way to request and
convey End-User claims to relying parties in an indirect manner via an
intermediate provider (e.g a wallet/holder depending on your nomenclature).
2. The Credential Provider draft is very much aligned to the Claims
Aggregation draft objectives. However where it differs are the following.
- It describes the vehicle/artifact in which the End-User claims are
communicated via the intermediate provider as being a "credential".
- It setup's the abstraction for "credentials" to come in different
formats, to allow room for other signature and proof types to exist in the
ecosystem (e.g such as W3C Verifiable Credentials).
- It describes how "credential" binding to the intermediate provider can be
performed via cryptography so that the "credential" is not simply bearer in
nature or has to be tied to "just in time" style issuance model where the
claims provider has to be online and available.
3. The OIDC4VCO draft is another proposal to integrate the claims assertion
format that is "W3C Verifiable Credentials and W3C Verifiable
Presentations" into OpenID Connect in a slightly different way.

> Well, I am not sure if that is the case. He commented in the chat "+1
tony I have the same concern" and Tony was clearly talking about the
OIDC4VCO draft.
In addition, he chatted "I agree there are issues Kristina, I dont dont
agree it cannot work though" when Kristina justified new draft instead of
bringing things to the Claims Aggregation draft.

Apologies but I am forgetting the complete context of this conversation now
and what my comments were in direct reference to. In my opinion there are
concepts from all three of these drafts we should be looking to consolidate
together.

Thanks,
[image: Mattr website] <https://mattr.global>
*Tobias Looker*
Mattr
+64 (0) 27 378 0461
tobias.looker at mattr.global
[image: Mattr website] <https://mattr.global> [image: Mattr on LinkedIn]
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/mattrglobal> [image: Mattr on Twitter]
<https://twitter.com/mattrglobal> [image: Mattr on Github]
<https://github.com/mattrglobal>
This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are
not the intended recipient, you should not read it - please contact me
immediately, destroy it, and do not copy or use any part of this
communication or disclose anything about it. Thank you. Please note that
this communication does not designate an information system for the
purposes of the Electronic Transactions Act 2002.


On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 5:13 AM Jeremie Miller via Openid-specs-ab <
openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net> wrote:

> The current draft of Claims Aggregation asserts very specific rules around
> how claims are cryptographically bound throughout their lifecycle, and
> those (noted below) are currently incompatible with a privacy-preserving
> presentation using proofs.
>
> These can definitely be addressed and the draft improved, which IMO would
> look like some blend of the Claims Aggregation draft, the OIDC4VCO draft,
> and the Credential Provider draft.  A decision likely needs to be agreed
> upon whether the issuance and presentation can usefully exist as separate
> specs or not.
>
> Jer
> ----
>
> Note - some of the items of concern (based on my understanding) are:
> * The "uid" value is required and correlatable
> * The audience requirements are not practical (final/eventual audience is
> unknown when claims are issued)
> * It requires JWTs for signed/encrypted aggregated results
> * It suggests no or long expiration, which requires providers and
> verifiers to implement revocation (which is a very complicated subject)
>
> All these can be iteratively improved, the result is likely to look
> notably different than the current draft.  I'm happy to start filing issues
> if or when that would be helpful.
>
> On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 7:59 AM Nat Sakimura via Openid-specs-ab <
> openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net> wrote:
>
>> Dear Kristina,
>>
>> Claims Aggregation draft deals with the following:
>>
>> * an intermediate OP (client) to perform discovery for a Claims Provider
>> Metadata;
>> * an intermediate OP to register as a client to a Claims Provider;
>> * an intermediate OP to obtain claims from the Claims Provider;
>> * an RP to ask for verified claims to the intermediate OP; and
>> * an intermediate OP returned aggregated claims from Claims Providers to
>> requesting clients.
>>
>> In the last bullet point, "aggregated claims" means the claims that were
>> gathered from claim providers/sources.
>> They are returned in the "_claim_sources" member.
>> e.g.
>>
>>    "_claim_sources": {
>>      "src1": {"JWT": "jwt_header.jwt_part2.jwt_part3"}
>>    }
>>
>> Unlike your statement "Claims Aggregation draft covers very specific
>> response syntax", it is just a generic OIDC Core response format.
>>
>> These claims may be obtained from CPs previously. It does not have to be
>> real-time at all.
>> It is semantically equivalent to providing Verifiable Presentation using
>> stored Verified Claims that were held by the "wallet" software.
>>
>> Note 1: "an intermediate OP" is equivalent to the "wallet" software.
>> Note 2: It is a software process that presents and not the user.
>>
>> I cannot speak for Tony or Tobias, but my understanding of their comment
>> is that by adding another response format like "vp_ldp", "vp_jwt" in
>> addition to "JWT" stated in the OIDC core and is explained in the Claims
>> Aggregation draft (or as a sub-type under "JWT"), it seems the presentation
>> issue can be dealt with. (I kind of remember Tony talking about it a long
>> time ago especially in the context of mDL and the above "guess" is informed
>> by the experience.)
>>
>> e.g.
>>
>>    "_claim_sources": {
>>      "src1": {"vp_jwt": "jwt_header.jwt_part2.jwt_part3"}
>>    }
>>
>>
>> I am guessing this is why Tony wrote: "at the top level there is a 100%
>> overlap on transporting the claims, as this is what a presentation does".
>>
>> Am I correct? > Tony?
>>
>> Are you ok with a new draft being written for VP Token as described in
>> Section 7 of the OIDC4VDO draft as long as the above portion is merged into
>> the Claims Aggregation draft? > Tony.
>>
>> Let us know.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Nat Sakimura
>>
>> On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 12:22 PM Kristina Yasuda <
>> Kristina.Yasuda at microsoft.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Nat Sakimura
>> NAT.Consulting LLC
>> _______________________________________________
>> Openid-specs-ab mailing list
>> Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab
>>
>
> *CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain confidential and
> privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any
> review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited.
> If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender
> immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any file attachments from
> your computer. Thank you.*_______________________________________________
> Openid-specs-ab mailing list
> Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab
>

-- 
This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are 
not the intended recipient, you should not read it - please contact me 
immediately, destroy it, and do not copy or use any part of this 
communication or disclose anything about it. Thank you. Please note that 
this communication does not designate an information system for the 
purposes of the Electronic Transactions Act 2002.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20210513/1c0260be/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Openid-specs-ab mailing list