[Openid-specs-ab] Spec Call Notes 9-May-19
Davide Vaghetti
davide.vaghetti at garr.it
Thu May 30 15:32:53 UTC 2019
Hi, I've screwed up the quoting so now it is difficult to understand who
said what, sorry! Let me fix it.
On 30/05/19 16:43, Torsten Lodderstedt wrote:
> Today, a RP can ignore the subject type simply because all sub Claim
> values are supposed to be stable and immutable over multiple OpenID
> Connect transactions. This means the RP can rely on the sub Claim for
> recognising a returning user no matter whether it is a public or
> pairwise id.
Good point!
> An ephemeral sub value (intentionally) works differently. I feel
> the OP should tell the RP that the sub is ephemeral so the RP knows,
> it cannot establish an id federation. An additional claim “sub_type”
> in ID token or user info response would suffice.
Now that you say it, I'm also thinking about all the use cases where
discovery and client registration are not used at all, that happens to
be the striking majority AFAIK ;-) In those cases it would be just
impossible to signal that the `sub` is neither public nor pairwise.
So, to sum up, we could just define a subject type for discovery and
registration, but also make it explicit adding a subject type claim in
the ID_token or the user info endpoint --- though I'd recommend passing
it directly in the ID token. How do you see it?
and once again thanks for the feedback.
Cheers,
Davide
On 30/05/19 17:08, Davide Vaghetti via Openid-specs-ab wrote:
> Hi Torsten,
>
> On 30/05/19 16:43, Torsten Lodderstedt wrote:
>> Hi Davide,
>>
>> thanks for the write up. I buy into it since I faced such use cases in the past.
>>
>> I’m not quite sure whether it is sufficient to just add another subject type value to the subject_types_supported element in the openid-configuration since this new subject type significantly changes the characteristics of the sub Claim.
>>
>> Today, a RP can ignore the subject type simply because all sub Claim values are supposed to be stable and immutable over multiple OpenID Connect transactions. This means the RP can rely on the sub Claim for recognising a returning user no matter whether it is a public or pairwise id.
>
> Good point!
>
> An ephemeral sub value (intentionally) works differently. I feel the OP
> should tell the RP that the sub is ephemeral so the RP knows, it cannot
> establish an id federation. An additional claim “sub_type” in ID token
> or user info response would suffice.
>
> Now that you say it, I'm also thinking about all the use cases where
> discovery and client registration are not used at all, that happens to
> be the striking majority AFAIK ;-) In those cases it would be just
> impossible to signal that the `sub` is neither public nor pairwise.
>
> So, to sum up, we could just define a subject type for discovery and
> registration, but also make it explicit adding a subject type claim in
> the ID_token or the user info endpoint --- though I'd recommend passing
> it directly in the ID token. How do you see it?
>
> Thanks a lot for the feedback.
>
> Cheers,
> Davide
>
>>
>> best regards,
>> Torsten.
>>
>>
>>> On 30. May 2019, at 06:59, Davide Vaghetti via Openid-specs-ab <openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> on the point below:
>>>
>>>> Transient Subject Identifier Type
>>>>
>>>> At IIW, Davide Vaghetti talked about the need for a
>>>> transient subject_type value, similar to that in SAML
>>>>
>>>> Mike and John encouraged him to write a specification for it
>>>
>>> ... this is what I've come up with:
>>>
>>> https://gist.github.com/daserzw/813023b4e1c04d09beb732ef00d7c9e9
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Davide
>>>
>>> On 09/05/19 17:19, Mike Jones via Openid-specs-ab wrote:
>>>> Spec Call Notes 9-May-19
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mike Jones
>>>>
>>>> Roland Hedberg
>>>>
>>>> Brian Campbell
>>>>
>>>> Torsten Lodderstedt
>>>>
>>>> Bjorn Hjelm
>>>>
>>>> George Fletcher
>>>>
>>>> Tom Jones
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> OpenID Certification
>>>>
>>>> Roland created certification tests for Session,
>>>> Front-Channel, and Back-Channel, which are now being tested
>>>>
>>>> Filip Skokan provided a lot of early feedback on the OP tests
>>>>
>>>> We now need instructions for testing so others can do so
>>>>
>>>> It seems that there will need to be some
>>>> browser-specific instructions in some cases
>>>>
>>>> There are RP logout tests also but they haven't been
>>>> tested yet by others than Roland
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Authentication Failed Error Code Draft
>>>>
>>>> This is issue #1029
>>>>
>>>> The error code is now unmet_authentication_requirements
>>>>
>>>> Torsten submitted and Mike will publish the working group
>>>> draft
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> OpenID Connect for Identity Proofing
>>>>
>>>> Another new draft was published at
>>>> https://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-4-identity-assurance.html
>>>>
>>>> Torsten led a discussion at IIW
>>>>
>>>> A lot of good feedback was received, including on
>>>> requirements for other jurisdictions
>>>>
>>>> It was pointed out that some proofs will require multiple
>>>> documents
>>>>
>>>> Torsten is working on updated syntax for that
>>>>
>>>> See issue #1082: Support for multiple proof
>>>> sources
>>>>
>>>> Reviews are solicited
>>>>
>>>> We agreed that Torsten should present this during EIC
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> EIC Next Week
>>>>
>>>> Roland, Torsten, Bjorn, George, and Mike will be at EIC
>>>> next week
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Distinguishing first and third party cookies
>>>>
>>>> George let us know that there's a spec that adds the
>>>> same-site qualifier to cookies
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-west-cookie-incrementalism-00
>>>>
>>>> Values are none, strict, and lax
>>>>
>>>> Also see
>>>> https://web.dev/samesite-cookies-explained/
>>>>
>>>> and
>>>> https://blog.chromium.org/2019/05/improving-privacy-and-security-on-web.html
>>>>
>>>> Google is adding support for this to Chrome
>>>>
>>>> George asked whether this might affect iframe and
>>>> postMessage communication
>>>>
>>>> And whether this might affect Session Management
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Open Issues
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://bitbucket.org/openid/connect/issues?status=new&status=open
>>>>
>>>> #1083: policy_uri, tos_uri, logo_uri missing in IANA JWT
>>>> claims registry
>>>>
>>>> Brian asked whether Nat really meant the JWT
>>>> Claims registry or the AS Metadata registry
>>>>
>>>> #1081: Need for a persistence user identifier - a PUID
>>>>
>>>> We discussed that change of keys is a change
>>>> of identity for self-issued
>>>>
>>>> We discussed the ability to add a "did" claim
>>>> to the ID Token when it is useful
>>>>
>>>> We discussed that the "sub" value must not
>>>> change at key roll-over time
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Transient Subject Identifier Type
>>>>
>>>> At IIW, Davide Vaghetti talked about the need for a
>>>> transient subject_type value, similar to that in SAML
>>>>
>>>> Mike and John encouraged him to write a specification for it
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Next Call
>>>>
>>>> The May 13th call is cancelled due EIC
>>>>
>>>> The next call is Thursday, May 23 at 7am Pacific Time
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Openid-specs-ab mailing list
>>>> Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
>>>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Davide Vaghetti
>>> Consortium GARR
>>> Tel: +390502213158
>>> Mobile: +393357779542
>>> Skype: daserzw
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Openid-specs-ab mailing list
>>> Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
>>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openid-specs-ab mailing list
> Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab
>
--
Davide Vaghetti
Consortium GARR
Tel: +390502213158
Mobile: +393357779542
Skype: daserzw
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4136 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20190530/7498e4b9/attachment.p7s>
More information about the Openid-specs-ab
mailing list