[Openid-specs-ab] Spec Call Notes 18-Nov-24

Tue Nov 19 20:11:39 UTC 2024

When we implemented Native SSO we found the ID token to be redundant in 
the token exchange step.

The device_secret "token" can be made to include everything that the ID 
token has, plus more if necessary. Thus the device_secret was entirely 
sufficient to determine the SSO subject and what other properties were 
necessary for the native session, such as the device session expiration 
and the ACR of the original user authentication.

I tend to agree that sometimes customers can't be demanding enough with 
specs that bring cool new features. And just the opposite when the spec 
does nothing significant, other than going to markedly improve their 
security, long term. I just said to myself, I some of them are reading this.

I think the self-help strategy to stay sane at this job - and that 
includes on the customer front - is to produce specs that are 
consistently & conceptually simple, easy to implement and fit the 
landscape of surrounding specs. This is what feels bad and demoralises - 
having to implement specs that conflict with one another or break 
previous guidance. Then the acrobatics to explain and justify that to 
customers.

Vladimir Dzhuvinov

On 19/11/2024 19:19, Brian Campbell via Openid-specs-ab wrote:
> Finding things in the archives is not easy (for me anyway) but here's 
> one historical account of my prior push-back on progressing Native SSO 
> https://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/2022-September/009376.html 
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 5:53 PM Michael Jones via Openid-specs-ab 
> <openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net> wrote:
>
>     Spec Call Notes 18-Nov-24
>
>     George Fletcher
>
>     Nat Sakimura
>
>     Mike Jones
>
>     Brian Campbell
>
>     David Waite
>
>     Tom Jones
>
>     Aaron Parecki
>
>     Native SSO spec
>
>     https://bitbucket.org/openid/connect/pull-requests/742
>
>     Mike will review and merge if it looks OK
>
>                     There are 8 open issues for Native SSO - 3 to be
>     closed by the PR above
>
>                     Brian questioned whether we should be taking this
>     to final or not
>
>     Given that it may not be the best practice for doing this
>
>                                     He said that we could make it a
>     blog post
>
>                     George asked if there is another best practice
>     that we should document instead
>
>                                     He observed that no one has
>     proposed a better way
>
>                     Mike said that Okta has implemented, so we should
>     involve them
>
>     Yahoo has implemented it, Vladimir has implemented it
>
>                     George said that there's value in documenting
>     these things
>
>                                     He wanted the working group to
>     weigh in to improve it, which they have
>
>                     Mike observed that we're also doing first-party
>     app work in the OAuth WG
>
>                     (Aaron joined the call at this point)
>
>                     Mike asked about Okta implementing the Native SSO spec
>
>     George said that Okta had extended it for a cross-device case in a
>     prototype
>
>     Aaron said that it's available as an API
>
>     https://developer.okta.com/docs/guides/configure-native-sso/main/
>
>                     Aaron said that Google has deployed a similar thing
>
>     George said that he wrote this down so others could understand how
>     to achieve what Google has
>
>                     Brian really dislikes the use of ID Tokens as
>     hints and with different validation rules
>
>                     Brian said that that a sometimes problem with
>     publishing specs is customers will see it and ask for it to be
>     implemented
>
>                                     We should be cognizant of that
>
>     Mobile work
>
>                     George mused about whether we want to do any
>     additional mobile-related work
>
>                     Mike asked what the MODRNA WG is doing now
>
>     People on the call didn't know
>
>     Bitbucket Issues
>
>     https://bitbucket.org/openid/connect/issues?status=new&status=open&status=submitted&is_spam=!spam
>     <https://bitbucket.org/openid/connect/issues?status=new&status=open&status=submitted&is_spam=!spam>
>
>                     No new issues
>
>     Working Group GitHub Repositories
>
>                     We now have four working group GitHub repositories:
>
>                     1. https://github.com/openid/federation
>
>                     2.
>     https://github.com/openid/federation-extended-listing
>
>                                     No issues or PRs
>
>     Implementations requested
>
>                     3. https://github.com/openid/federation-wallet/
>
>                                     14 open issues
>
>     Many of the early ones record things that were in pre-adopted
>     versions of the spec
>
>     https://github.com/openid/federation-wallet/issues/39 Authorized
>     Credential within OpenID4VP metadata using Duckle
>
>     Mike will review
>
>     https://github.com/openid/federation-wallet/issues/40 Trust Marks
>     examples
>
>     The examples seem reasonable
>
>     https://github.com/openid/federation-wallet/issues/41 Complex
>     Trust Marks examples
>
>     What's the motivation for these examples?
>
>     https://github.com/openid/federation-wallet/issues/42 Trust Mark
>     with Intended Usage
>
>     ditto
>
>                     4. https://github.com/openid/rp-metadata-choices
>
>                                     No issues or PRs
>
>     Mike knows of work to do due to the discussion on the list after
>     the spec was contributed
>
>                     Nat pointed out that we need to update the
>     repository page for the WG to list all the repositories
>
>     Mike agreed to take the action to do that
>
>     OpenID4VP
>
>                     It's currently in the 45-day foundation-wide
>     review as a proposed Implementer's Draft
>
>                     Tom asked about user consent with credential
>     presentation
>
>                     Mike suggested that if he has objections to the
>     spec that he put them in issues
>
>     Then the objections are actionable
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Openid-specs-ab mailing list
>     Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
>     https://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab
>
>
> /CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain confidential and 
> privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any 
> review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly 
> prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please 
> notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any 
> file attachments from your computer. Thank you./
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openid-specs-ab mailing list
> Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
> https://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20241119/d93df2aa/attachment-0001.htm>