[Openid-specs-ab] Starting SIOP draft discussion

[Torsten Lodderstedt]

> On 22. May 2020, at 21:25, Mike Jones via Openid-specs-ab <openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net> wrote:
> 
> FYI, those using the Self-Issued OpenID Provider for DID Auth are using it a conforming way.  The “sub” value is the JWK Thumbprint of the public key and they add a “did” claim to the ID Token.  No breaking changes are needed.

Which party or component do you refer to re “no breaking changes”?

As far as I understand, the RP needs a DID and needs to be DID aware to be able to use the flow. The draft also uses an additional scope value “did_authn" to signal the new profile to the SIOP. In my opinion, the draft encodes DID authn into SIOP but cannot be used by any RP relying on pre-existing SIOP and it also requires extensions in the SIOP implementation. I think that’s fine but to me this looks like some breaking changes. 

> 
>                                                                      -- Mike
>  
> From: Openid-specs-ab <openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net> On Behalf Of Pamela Dingle via Openid-specs-ab
> Sent: Friday, May 22, 2020 11:46 AM
> To: Artifact Binding/Connect Working Group <openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>
> Cc: Pamela Dingle <Pamela.Dingle at microsoft.com>
> Subject: Re: [Openid-specs-ab] Starting SIOP draft discussion
>  
> Hey all, 
>  
> DIF has written a decentralized identity draft profile for OpenID Connect self-issued provider.   The draft link is below, it needs review by this community and I hope we can find a converged path where we either move that profile to OIDF for ratification or have some kind of formal liaison so that both communities can easily work together.  Please note, this draft was not developed in the blockchain vacuum, I believe various of you have been consulted over time so hopefully when you read this you will see this as a reasonable initial attempt.
>  
> The draft is here:  https://identity.foundation/did-siop/
>  
> I think both Nat and Mike have the cross-foundational experience to make a recommendation on a good path forward - perhaps a joint meeting to review?
>  
> Thanks,
>  
> Pam 
> From: Openid-specs-ab <openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net> on behalf of George Fletcher via Openid-specs-ab <openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>
> Sent: Friday, May 22, 2020 11:26 AM
> To: Artifact Binding/Connect Working Group <openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>
> Cc: George Fletcher <gffletch at aol.com>
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Openid-specs-ab] Starting SIOP draft discussion
>  
> I don't have any direct comments to these points other than to say that the topic of spinning out the SIOP work into a new document and revising it came up in the OpenID Connect working group meeting this past Thursday.
> 
> Topics discussed included making the 'sub' claim not tied to the public key and possibly using a DID-like identifier. Or at least allowing a DID as the 'sub' claim for those wanting to use SIOP with self-sovereign identity use cases.
> 
> Personally, I'm in favor of making SIOP real for today's use cases :)
> 
> Thanks,
> George
> 
> On 5/21/20 4:25 AM, Nat Sakimura via Openid-specs-ab wrote:
> Hi
>  
> I and Edmund have been discussing the additional SIOP requirements that
> were agreed to made into an independent document a while ago.
>  
> Here is what I am thinking right now. Edmund has a draft for new
> "Aggregation Endpoint" of the Claims Providers (CP) that I am hoping that
> he can follow up with.
>  
>  
>  
> General Flow happens like this.
>  
> 1. On-Boarding of SIOP to CP
> 1.1. Dynamic Client Registration of SIOP to CP
> 1.2. User Authorizes general data access to SIOP.
> 1.3. SIOP obtains the AT/RT.
>  
> 2. RP asking for a set of claims
> 2.1. RP requests the SIOP for a set of claims
> 2.2. SIOP creates the constrained claims request using AT and uid whose
> value
>      is the `sub` value that the SIOP uses against the RP and should be set
> as
> the `sub` value of the aggregation endpoint response (NEW)
> 2.3. CP returns a JWS signed JWT that contains sub=value(uid) and other
> requested claims in the payload.
> 2.4. SIOP puts the JWT in the ID Token and responds to the RP.
> 2.5. RP verifies that the `sub` value of the ID Token is equal to the `sub`
> value in the CP minted JWT,  besides all the verification that is required
> for ID Token.
>  
> Here are some of the Requirements that follows the above.
>  
> 1. CP MUST support OAuth Dynamic Client Registration.
> 2. CP MUST support "aggregation endpoint" that is capable of returning
> constrained JWT with sub=uid.
>  
> Discussion
> 1. What should be the aud of the CP returned JWT?
>  
> Please chime into this thread.
> Perhaps I should create an issue in the tracker...
>  
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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