[Openid-specs-ab] acr values

Anthony Nadalin tonynad at microsoft.com
Mon Aug 12 20:30:24 UTC 2013


Who do you want to say something about the “session strength” to?

From: openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net [mailto:openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net] On Behalf Of Tim Bray
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2013 1:05 PM
To: <openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>
Subject: [Openid-specs-ab] acr values

In our IDP role, we’re coming under a lot of pressure to say something about “session strength” and maybe in some circumstances force re-auth and so on.  There are a lot of different vocabularies in play that you could use to talk about this stuff, including NIST and ISO publications; and the work of the Fido alliance is maybe interesting.  So I expect a lot of churn in this space, and OIDC needs to allow sufficient elbow room.
So, the purpose of this note is to confirm my understandings, based on looking at the OIDC Messages draft.  Do people agree with these?
- It’s perfectly OK to provide any old URI we dream up as a value for the “acr” claim.
- There may be awkwardness around multiple values; suppose I wanted to assert, for example, that the session is less than ten minutes old AND two-factor authent was used.    All I can think of is composing a URI along the lines of urn:google-auth-claims?max-age=10&two-factor=true; which is a little kludgy but I guess OK.  Awkward, though, in the case where there’s a Fido vocabulary for 2-factor-flavor and someone else’s vocabulary for session-freshness.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20130812/fb9b0fb1/attachment.html>


More information about the Openid-specs-ab mailing list