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

Anthony Nadalin tonynad at microsoft.com
Fri Jun 14 20:29:43 UTC 2019


It sure is look at ISO documents and NIST documents

Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>

________________________________
From: Tom Jones <thomasclinganjones at gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2019 12:56:00 PM
To: Artifact Binding/Connect Working Group
Cc: Mike Jones; Torsten Lodderstedt; Anthony Nadalin
Subject: Re: [Openid-specs-ab] Review of openid-connect-4-identity-assurance-04

Tony: that's not the real world meaning of claim. A claim of title is not a title. It is only a title when it is recognized and registered. So a more historically accurate term would be a registered claim.

thx ..Tom (mobile)

On Fri, Jun 14, 2019, 9:48 AM Anthony Nadalin via Openid-specs-ab <openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net<mailto:openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>> wrote:
It’s not a claim then, it’s a statement, it does not matter who has the claim, the issuer or the beholder, it’s still in doubt. I don’t understand enough of the “verified” statement since the language is vague in the specification, is it the provenance of the data or the truth of the data ?

From: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones at microsoft.com<mailto:Michael.Jones at microsoft.com>>
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2019 9:45 AM
To: Anthony Nadalin <tonynad at microsoft.com<mailto:tonynad at microsoft.com>>; Artifact Binding/Connect Working Group <openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net<mailto:openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>>; Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten at lodderstedt.net<mailto:torsten at lodderstedt.net>>
Subject: Re: Review of openid-connect-4-identity-assurance-04

A claim is a statement made by the issuer. A verified claim is one with evidence backing it beyond the veracity of the issuer.
Doubt or belief are both properties of the beholder - not the issuer.
-- Mike
________________________________
From: Anthony Nadalin
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2019 6:44:29 PM
To: Artifact Binding/Connect Working Group; Torsten Lodderstedt
Cc: Mike Jones
Subject: RE: Review of openid-connect-4-identity-assurance-04

A claim is something in doubt, how can you have a verified claim?

From: Openid-specs-ab <openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net<mailto:openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net>> On Behalf Of Mike Jones via Openid-specs-ab
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2019 8:42 AM
To: Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten at lodderstedt.net<mailto:torsten at lodderstedt.net>>
Cc: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones at microsoft.com<mailto:Michael.Jones at microsoft.com>>; openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net<mailto:openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>
Subject: Re: [Openid-specs-ab] Review of openid-connect-4-identity-assurance-04

I agree with "verified_claims".
Thanks!
-- Mike
________________________________
From: Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten at lodderstedt.net<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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,
Torsten.

_______________________________________________
Openid-specs-ab mailing list
Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net<mailto:Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.openid.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fopenid-specs-ab&data=02%7C01%7Ctonynad%40microsoft.com%7Cc0b190309bb142bc31df08d6f1025a7b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636961389757361746&sdata=CWslAGBkNNR%2FtK9MGiEBOpOmInmd0jfZiFTEEwEKWg0%3D&reserved=0>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20190614/17cc01f7/attachment.html>


More information about the Openid-specs-ab mailing list