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

Anthony Nadalin tonynad at microsoft.com
Sun Jun 16 03:04:32 UTC 2019


It's a very very poor definition, you need to look at the real definition not a made up one

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

________________________________
From: Mike Jones
Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2019 7:37:55 AM
To: Torsten Lodderstedt; Anthony Nadalin
Cc: Artifact Binding/Connect Working Group
Subject: RE: Review of openid-connect-4-identity-assurance-04

The normative definition of “Claim” for JWTs is this one from the JWT spec at https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7519#section-2<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Frfc7519%23section-2&data=04%7C01%7Ctonynad%40microsoft.com%7C0f365fd3d08544bc4bcc08d6f19f0e13%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636962062806639802%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C-1&sdata=9VDX6CJrpmf6yczeaZ7qh9Ja6cNJxZJMscgWSnyqJ4g%3D&reserved=0>:

   Claim
      A piece of information asserted about a subject.  A claim is
      represented as a name/value pair consisting of a Claim Name and a
      Claim Value.

It says nothing about doubt – just that the information was asserted.  Therefore, I continue to agree that Torsten’s suggested identifier “verified_claim” is the right one.

                                                       -- Mike

From: Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten at lodderstedt.net>
Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2019 12:52 AM
To: Anthony Nadalin <tonynad at microsoft.com>
Cc: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones at microsoft.com>; Artifact Binding/Connect Working Group <openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>
Subject: Re: Review of openid-connect-4-identity-assurance-04



Am 14.06.2019 um 18:48 schrieb Anthony Nadalin <tonynad at microsoft.com<mailto:tonynad at microsoft.com>>:
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 ?

I would say first of all truth but backed by data about the provenance

Happy to incorporate your text proposals to improve the spec language



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/<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fw3c.github.io%2Fvc-data-model%2F&data=04%7C01%7Ctonynad%40microsoft.com%7C0f365fd3d08544bc4bcc08d6f19f0e13%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636962062806649796%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C-1&sdata=ZhD5gyQPknwyT3Vz7WSqY02%2BRgiSPimz3%2FCwNL%2BywMs%3D&reserved=0>, 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.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20190616/f7311107/attachment.html>


More information about the Openid-specs-ab mailing list