[Openid-specs-ab] SIOP Special Call Notes 13-May-21
Mike Jones
Michael.Jones at microsoft.com
Thu May 13 16:19:59 UTC 2021
SIOP Special Call Notes 13-May-21
Kristina Yasuda
Mike Jones
Adrian Gropper - Brings a patient perspective to identity discussions
Jo Vercammen - CTO for Meeco, in Belgium
David Chadwick - CEO of Verifiable Credentials Ltd. - spinout from University of Kent, Covid Credentials with OpenID Connect
Oliver Terbu
Torsten Lodderstedt
Tony Nadalin
Nat Sakimura
Justin Richer
Adam Lemmon
Pamela Dingle
Jeremie Miller
Tim Cappalli
Alen Horvat
David Waite (DW)
John Bradley
Relationship between Claims Aggregation and OIDC4VCO drafts
Tony spoke to his desire to see the drafts merged
He believes that they're solving the same problem at the high level
He wants to avoid having two ways to deliver sets of claims
David Chadwick said that verifiable credentials are a single package, versus sets of claims
He said that with VPs, it's not an OpenID Provider doing the packaging
Tony said that it could be
Torsten said that claims aggregation is a packaging mechanism
He said that we could investigate whether aggregated claims are suitable for delivering VPs
He said that the Claims Aggregation draft fills in gaps left in OpenID Connect Core
He reported that the special group and IIW thought that other mechanisms could be used instead of aggregated claims
Nat said that the Claims Aggregation draft also talks about presentation
Torsten disagreed
Nat said that the current writing is a bit muddled, but it is talking about presentation
Nat has filed issues about improving the text
Torsten said that we need request syntax for requesting verifiable presentations
Torsten said that the OIDC4VCO draft hasn't yet been accepted by the working group
Nat said that the call for adoption was done just a week ago
The adoption decision should occur by consensus
This discussion is happening as a result of concerns raised
This is explained in issue #1229
Torsten was in favor of aggregated claims but is concerned that the WG and IIW said that that was not preferred
Nat suggested possibly including the approach in OIDC4VCO in the Claims Aggregation draft
Pam expressed that these things could be addressed separately
Torsten thought that it would be more efficient for WG members to read both drafts and form their own opinions
Nat said that it's normal for things to change after adoption
Mike spoke up in favor adopting the existing draft
He said that we can later merge things if it makes sense - just as we did with the Messages and Standard drafts
Nat said that, as chair, he's working towards consensus
Tony said that he wants to understand the full scope of what we're trying to do
Kristina noted that VCs are quite different than JWT claims in the current Connect specifications
Torsten suggests that people read both drafts and we discuss next steps during the upcoming Connect calls
Nat agreed
Trust Frameworks and SIOP
DW spoke to the message he said to the list
http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/2021-May/008286.html
He said that particular communities will specify profiles of how things work for their use cases
He said that Trust Frameworks may also specify invocation mechanisms
As opposed to having a special-purpose mechanism using openid:// and https://self-issued.me/
He talked about using universal links
This could avoid NASCAR-like behaviors
Oliver said that he'd be interested in how this would apply to open source wallets
DW said that secure wallets could seek certification within trust frameworks
DW said that universal links can reduce the complexity
DW said that using OpenID Federation Entity IDs could enable for automatic registrations using resolvable sets of metadata
Adrian asked how Federation relates to Trust Frameworks and Authenticators
DW said that Trust Frameworks have the benefit of starting with more constrained profiles
There was discussion of CTAP authenticators and choices made by Trust Frameworks
Adrian said that he's concerned with what the CAIRN alliance is doing
John spoke to Trust Frameworks, such as Open Banking in the UK
Adrian said that this is the opposite of self-sovereign technology
John said that self-sovereign deployments still need to know about the veracity of information used
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20210513/e1820160/attachment.html>
More information about the Openid-specs-ab
mailing list