[Openid-specs-ab] Messages Review 2

Mike Jones Michael.Jones at microsoft.com
Tue Jun 4 23:09:46 UTC 2013

Being asserted is what makes a claim a claim.  If they were indisputable truth, they wouldn't be claims.  We have to leave that in.

I'm actually not happy with suggestions that we significantly revise core definitions that have been extensively reviewed and agreed to by the working group before they were added to the specs.  I know that the "claim" definition was one that was extensively discussed.  Changing it is the wrong thing to be doing at this point.  We should be trying to finish - not changing everything around when the current definitions are already working.

If you believe that we need to use "attribute", the onus is on you to provide specific proposed alternative language.  But I can't agree to gutting the meaning of Claim, since it's so central to what OpenID Connect is about.

                                                            -- Mike

From: Nat Sakimura [mailto:sakimura at gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 4:02 PM
To: Mike Jones
Cc: openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
Subject: Re: [Openid-specs-ab] Messages Review 2

Thanks Mike.

Just quickly getting back on "Claims".

I have removed the notion of being "asserted" from the definition of "Claim" since we are using "Claim" in the sense of "Attribute", which does not have the notion of being "asserted". Attributes are there whether or not it is asserted by somebody or not.

If you really want the notion of "asserted" in the definition of "Claim", we have to use "Attribute" instead in several instances. I am happier that way. Do you really want to go there?

Simpler way is just to drop the notion of being asserted from the definition of Claim and put the notion into Claims Provider definition. That's what I did, in the interest of time.

2013/6/5 Mike Jones <Michael.Jones at microsoft.com<mailto:Michael.Jones at microsoft.com>>
My comments added to the attached version.

From: openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net<mailto:openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net> [mailto:openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net<mailto:openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net>] On Behalf Of Nat Sakimura
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 4:12 AM
To: openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net<mailto:openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>
Subject: [Openid-specs-ab] Messages Review 2

Now I have completed the review of Messages apart from section 2.9 and Self-issued related things.

Many errors and omissions. On March 1, somehow, HTTP binding was introduced to UserInfo endpoint. Such a binding belongs to Standard, and not here. Since there was no commit message, the mail/minutes, and tickets to the effect, it took me quite a while to locate when and on what commit it had happened.

Some of the MUST requirements around explicit consent are too strong and does not account for governmental, enterprise, and consumer protection use cases. Such strong requirements can be written as a sector specific profile, but not as a base spec.

Nat Sakimura (=nat)
Chairman, OpenID Foundation

Nat Sakimura (=nat)
Chairman, OpenID Foundation
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20130604/c9416122/attachment.html>

More information about the Openid-specs-ab mailing list