[Openid-specs-ab] Review of openid-connect-4-identity-assurance-04

Tom Jones thomasclinganjones at gmail.com
Mon Jun 17 17:09:10 UTC 2019


Mike: I appreciate the reference to verified email and other subject
supplied claims. In those cases the verifier is the RP client or OP as the
case may be.
What is missing AFAICT is the concept of third party verification, which is
what is needed here. Extending verified to this case may, or may not, be a
good idea.
The current unmet problem of the verified claims is that, first of all, the
{subject, client, whatever} needs to trust the verifier.
I have been building a solution to that problem based on the oidc
federation draft.
This is a problem for which AFAICT no stds group has a solution.
One existing model is the attestation server of the TPM or the network
policy server in windows.
would this group be prepared to deal with such a doc if i tried to create
it?
Does anyone else need such a solution and would like to work on it?
Peace ..tom


On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 9:14 AM Mike Jones <Michael.Jones at microsoft.com>
wrote:

> Use of "verified" in this context with this meaning is already existing
> practice. For instance see the use of the "verified" term in the
> "phone_number_verified" and "email_verified" claims from
> https://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html#StandardClaims and
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/jwt/jwt.xhtml#claims.
>
> We should continue using the same term in this context since it has the
> same meaning. Inventing another term for the same thing would only cause
> needless confusion.
>
> -- Mike
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Anthony Nadalin
> *Sent:* Monday, June 17, 2019 5:42:35 PM
> *To:* Tom Jones; Artifact Binding/Connect Working Group
> *Cc:* Mike Jones; Torsten Lodderstedt
> *Subject:* RE: [Openid-specs-ab] Review of
> openid-connect-4-identity-assurance-04
>
>
> If I understand the meaning of “verified” here I would say that
> “registered claim” is a far better term, and gets away from the false sense
> of “verified”
>
>
>
> *From:* Tom Jones <thomasclinganjones at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Sunday, June 16, 2019 12:51 PM
> *To:* Artifact Binding/Connect Working Group <
> openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>
> *Cc:* Mike Jones <Michael.Jones at microsoft.com>; Torsten Lodderstedt <
> torsten at lodderstedt.net>; Anthony Nadalin <tonynad at microsoft.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [Openid-specs-ab] Review of
> openid-connect-4-identity-assurance-04
>
>
>
> Ah Tony - the JWT definition seems good enough to me. Provide value can be
> a complex structure like an address.
>
> Here is the definition in my glossary A statement by or about a
> <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftcwiki.azurewebsites.net%2Findex.php%3Ftitle%3DClaim%23Full_Title_or_Meme&data=04%7C01%7CMichael.Jones%40microsoft.com%7C738191bfa76a4dcafab008d6f3320a2f%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636963793587060048%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C-1&sdata=H%2BGm3BdBGqLnj15KUeP6xVxLViXDRBmHb2yDKdflB7Y%3D&reserved=0>Subject is
> a claim. If there is some corroboration of the claim, it is called
> a Validated claim.
> <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftcwiki.azurewebsites.net%2Findex.php%3Ftitle%3DClaim%23Full_Title_or_Meme&data=04%7C01%7CMichael.Jones%40microsoft.com%7C738191bfa76a4dcafab008d6f3320a2f%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636963793587070049%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C-1&sdata=%2BS7MFsmGx2mDkTWDCiZorn08wCm6MuQ7%2FE9uQe6cJ2w%3D&reserved=0>
>
> Here is the definition from Skeats  to call our for, or to publish,
> pretty much the same meaning as the Latin word *clarmare*.
>
>
>
> the adjectives verified validated and registered should all work. I do
> like the historical precedent for registered myself.
>
>
> Peace ..tom
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 8:04 PM Anthony Nadalin via Openid-specs-ab <
> openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net> wrote:
>
> It's a very very poor definition, you need to look at the real definition
> not a made up one
>
> Get Outlook for Android <https://aka.ms/ghei36>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Mike Jones
> *Sent:* Saturday, June 15, 2019 7:37:55 AM
> *To:* Torsten Lodderstedt; Anthony Nadalin
> *Cc:* Artifact Binding/Connect Working Group
> *Subject:* RE: Review of openid-connect-4-identity-assurance-04
>
>
>
> The normative definition of “Claim” for JWTs is this one from the JWT spec
> at https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7519#section-2
> <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Frfc7519%23section-2&data=04%7C01%7CMichael.Jones%40microsoft.com%7C738191bfa76a4dcafab008d6f3320a2f%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636963793587070049%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C-1&sdata=K0G5SRStAquN9NSSxZlOB1ieGLYXwXuNkm9fIG9Qi1Y%3D&reserved=0>
> :
>
>
>
>    Claim
>
>       A piece of information asserted about a subject.  A claim is
>
>       represented as a name/value pair consisting of a Claim Name and a
>
>       Claim Value.
>
>
>
> It says nothing about doubt – just that the information was asserted.
> Therefore, I continue to agree that Torsten’s suggested identifier
> “verified_claim” is the right one.
>
>
>
>                                                        -- Mike
>
>
>
> *From:* Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten at lodderstedt.net>
> *Sent:* Saturday, June 15, 2019 12:52 AM
> *To:* Anthony Nadalin <tonynad at microsoft.com>
> *Cc:* Mike Jones <Michael.Jones at microsoft.com>; Artifact Binding/Connect
> Working Group <openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>
> *Subject:* Re: Review of openid-connect-4-identity-assurance-04
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Am 14.06.2019 um 18:48 schrieb Anthony Nadalin <tonynad at microsoft.com>:
>
> It’s not a claim then, it’s a statement, it does not matter who has the
> claim, the issuer or the beholder, it’s still in doubt. I don’t understand
> enough of the “verified” statement since the language is vague in the
> specification, is it the provenance of the data or the truth of the data ?
>
>
>
> I would say first of all truth but backed by data about the provenance
>
>
>
> Happy to incorporate your text proposals to improve the spec language
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Mike Jones <Michael.Jones at microsoft.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, June 14, 2019 9:45 AM
> *To:* Anthony Nadalin <tonynad at microsoft.com>; Artifact Binding/Connect
> Working Group <openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>; Torsten Lodderstedt <
> torsten at lodderstedt.net>
> *Subject:* Re: Review of openid-connect-4-identity-assurance-04
>
>
>
> A claim is a statement made by the issuer. A verified claim is one with
> evidence backing it beyond the veracity of the issuer.
>
> Doubt or belief are both properties of the beholder - not the issuer.
>
> -- Mike
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Anthony Nadalin
> *Sent:* Friday, June 14, 2019 6:44:29 PM
> *To:* Artifact Binding/Connect Working Group; Torsten Lodderstedt
> *Cc:* Mike Jones
> *Subject:* RE: Review of openid-connect-4-identity-assurance-04
>
>
>
> A claim is something in doubt, how can you have a verified claim?
>
>
>
> *From:* Openid-specs-ab <openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net> *On
> Behalf Of *Mike Jones via Openid-specs-ab
> *Sent:* Friday, June 14, 2019 8:42 AM
> *To:* Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten at lodderstedt.net>
> *Cc:* Mike Jones <Michael.Jones at microsoft.com>;
> openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
> *Subject:* Re: [Openid-specs-ab] Review of
> openid-connect-4-identity-assurance-04
>
>
>
> I agree with "verified_claims".
>
> Thanks!
>
> -- Mike
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten at lodderstedt.net>
> *Sent:* Friday, June 14, 2019 5:47:17 PM
> *To:* Mike Jones
> *Cc:* Daniel Fett; openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
> *Subject:* Re: Review of openid-connect-4-identity-assurance-04
>
>
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> Thanks a lot for your substantial feedback.
>
> While I'm incorporating it, I would like to sort out one question:
>
> > On 1. Jun 2019, at 02:16, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones at microsoft.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > All Sections:  Generalize kinds of verified claims.  The most important
> issue is to generalize the goal of the document from defining how to use
> “verified person data” to defining how to use “verified data”.  This work
> isn’t happening in a vacuum.  There are other efforts to define
> representations of verified claims in the industry, including
> https://w3c.github.io/vc-data-model/
> <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fw3c.github.io%2Fvc-data-model%2F&data=04%7C01%7CMichael.Jones%40microsoft.com%7C738191bfa76a4dcafab008d6f3320a2f%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636963793587080034%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C-1&sdata=%2BlsNcGKOk2Hn3axOpeovB1Y9GDaDdiRJaUJb2PnEaAI%3D&reserved=0>,
> that take this more general approach, but propose much more complicated
> data representations that are not based on JWTs.  It would be highly
> beneficial to have a simple general JWT-based “verified data”
> representation that is general-purpose.  Indeed, that’s the possibility
> that excites me about this work.  Don’t get me wrong – I believe that all
> the particulars for verified people data can and should remain.  The main
> concrete change needed is to rename “verified_person_data” to
> “verified_data”.
>
> I think “verified_claims” would fit even better. What do you think?
>
> best regards,
> Torsten.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openid-specs-ab mailing list
> Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab
> <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.openid.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fopenid-specs-ab&data=04%7C01%7CMichael.Jones%40microsoft.com%7C738191bfa76a4dcafab008d6f3320a2f%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636963793587080034%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C-1&sdata=2K8aHamOCNr2QwvT3VlpdSN1%2B2M56O5EZ52mCPr78xk%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20190617/879f9087/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Openid-specs-ab mailing list