[Openid-specs-ab] Call for Adoption for the OpenID Connect Key Binding Specification

[Brian Campbell]

I do not believe the Working Group should adopt the OpenID Connect Key
Binding draft.

I find that this document is conceptually duplicative of much of the
existing Working Group's efforts on the OpenID Connect UserInfo Verifiable
Credentials (VC) document. Richard, one of the authors of the UserInfo VC
draft, recently proposed reviving that draft and rebasing it on the latest
OpenID4VCI and the simpler SD-JWT VC token construct. I previously
expressed my support for that proposal on the mailing list
<https://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/2025-September/010981.html>,
and I reiterate that support now.

Even if some authors and contributors to the UserInfo VC work have shifted
their focus, I believe the Working Group should not discard or disregard
that existing work by adopting a duplicative specification. At a minimum,
there should be a clear attempt at collaboration or reconciliation between
these efforts before proceeding with adoption.


On Tue, Sep 23, 2025 at 10:38 AM george--- via Openid-specs-ab <
openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net> wrote:

> As per my many comments and emails on this topic…
>
> I am in favor of providing a mechanisms for Relying Parties to be able to
> share attributes regarding the authentication of the logged in user with
> downstream systems (e.g. resource servers). I am not in favor of using an
> id_token to communicate this information.
>
> Not sure if this is helpful to the chairs or not :)
>
> George Fletcher
> Identity Standards Architect
> Practical Identity LLC
>
>
>
> On Sep 15, 2025, at 6:57 PM, Michael Jones via Openid-specs-ab <
> openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net> wrote:
>
> This starts a two-week call for feedback on whether to adopt the OpenID
> Connect OpenID Connect Key Binding specification contributed to the working
> group by Dick Hardt and Ethan Heilman as an OpenID Connect Working Group
> specification.  Please reply-all by Monday, September 29, 2025 saying
> whether you are favor of adoption or not, also saying why.
>
> The specification was contributed at
> https://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/2025-August/010890.html.
> It has been extensively discussed by the working group both on calls and on
> the mailing list.  From my observations of the discussion as a working
> group chair, I believe that there is consensus that it would be useful to
> have a standard solving the problem addressed by this specification.
>
>                                                 Writing as a working group
> chair,
>                                                                 -- Mike
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openid-specs-ab mailing list
> Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
> https://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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._
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20250924/c7e1efa1/attachment.htm>