[Openid-specs-ab] Messages Review 2

Mike Jones Michael.Jones at microsoft.com
Wed Jun 5 02:30:24 UTC 2013


What inconsistency are you trying to address?  I really don't know.

There's no conflict in using the term Claimed Identity if "Claims" is in the definition of Identity because linguistically, "Claimed" is a completely different word, and used in a different way from "Claims", if that's the supposed inconsistency that you were trying to address.  "Claimed" as an adjective has to do with an ownership stake.  "Claim" as a noun has to do with an assertion of fact.  There's no inconsistency in using them together.

As for moving the offline access text, there was working group agreement on the normative parts - especially that it *must* be ignored if used in the implicit flow.  We're primarily writing these specs for developers - not privacy commissioners.  Developers will be much more likely to skip the privacy text than text that's part of the offline_access definition.

                                                            -- Mike

From: Nat Sakimura [mailto:sakimura at gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 5:13 PM
To: Mike Jones
Cc: openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
Subject: Re: [Openid-specs-ab] Messages Review 2

In as much as I value the discussion, the inconsistency has to be removed from the spec.

I talked with John and came up with modified definition of Identity and Identifier. I can live with the following and the definition of Claims.
Now you can say Claimed Identifier and Claimed Identity. If you have "Claim" in the definition of these, you cannot.

Identity
Set of pieces of information related to an entity

Identifier
String within the scope of issuer namespace that allows clients to correlate one or more assertions about an entity.

For the MUST in the offline access case, my proposed text still keeps all the MUSTs. I have just qualified them instead of being unconditional, which is a right thing to do, then moved to Privacy Consideration section as a normative text, as this really is a privacy issue and not interoperability issue, and is important enough to bring it up in the light of privacy so that privacy compliance officers will notice.

2013/6/5 Mike Jones <Michael.Jones at microsoft.com<mailto:Michael.Jones at microsoft.com>>
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<mailto:sakimura at gmail.com>]
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 4:02 PM
To: Mike Jones
Cc: openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net<mailto: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
http://nat.sakimura.org/
@_nat_en



--
Nat Sakimura (=nat)
Chairman, OpenID Foundation
http://nat.sakimura.org/
@_nat_en



--
Nat Sakimura (=nat)
Chairman, OpenID Foundation
http://nat.sakimura.org/
@_nat_en
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20130605/3025d072/attachment.html>


More information about the Openid-specs-ab mailing list