[Openid-specs-ab] Review of openid-connect-4-identity-assurance-04

Mike Jones Michael.Jones at microsoft.com
Fri Jun 14 15:41:48 UTC 2019

I agree with "verified_claims".

-- Mike
From: Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten at lodderstedt.net>
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2019 5:47:17 PM
To: Mike Jones
Cc: Daniel Fett; openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
Subject: Re: Review of openid-connect-4-identity-assurance-04

Hi Mike,

Thanks a lot for your substantial feedback.

While I'm incorporating it, I would like to sort out one question:

> On 1. Jun 2019, at 02:16, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones at microsoft.com> wrote:
> All Sections:  Generalize kinds of verified claims.  The most important issue is to generalize the goal of the document from defining how to use “verified person data” to defining how to use “verified data”.  This work isn’t happening in a vacuum.  There are other efforts to define representations of verified claims in the industry, including https://w3c.github.io/vc-data-model/, that take this more general approach, but propose much more complicated data representations that are not based on JWTs.  It would be highly beneficial to have a simple general JWT-based “verified data” representation that is general-purpose.  Indeed, that’s the possibility that excites me about this work.  Don’t get me wrong – I believe that all the particulars for verified people data can and should remain.  The main concrete change needed is to rename “verified_person_data” to “verified_data”.

I think “verified_claims” would fit even better. What do you think?

best regards,

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20190614/9ab54a6c/attachment.html>

More information about the Openid-specs-ab mailing list