<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Spec call notes 20-Dec-12<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Brian Campbell<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">John Bradley<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Nat Sakimura<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Justin Richer<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Mike Jones<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Tim Bray<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Agenda:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Inconsistency between user_id and prn<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Allowing multiple audiences<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> "cid" claim<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Open Issues<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Editing<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> WebFinger<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Inconsistency between user_id and prn:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> No one objected to making them consistent<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> People felt that subject is actually the better term than principal<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> It's parallel to SAML<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Even JWT defines prn in terms of "subject"<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Allowing multiple audiences:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Our sense is that allowing "aud" to be either a string or an array of strings is OK and less invasive than always forcing it to be an array.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Nat suggested that we also say that when there is no audience restriction we leave
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Open Issues:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> There was 1 new open issue<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> #689 JWT aud claim issues - about allowing multiple audiences<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">"cid" claim:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> The "cid" claim represents the party authorized to use the token<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> There isn't a way for the audience to verify who the party was that presented the token<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> John believes this is related to proof of possession<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Justin says that having this claim makes sense because there would be representations for all 4 OAuth parties<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Descriptions: Authorized user, registered user, authorized party ("azp"?)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Or we may want an OAuth-specific claim, which could be "cid"<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Authorized presenter ("azp") seems like a more general form<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> We could define this in Connect but not in JWT for the moment<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> We would need to define a processing rule when "azp" is received<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> The client can ignore it but it is used by the resource<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> The "cit" (Client Identification Data claim type) claim is more related to proof of possession, and can wait<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Editing update:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Mike is doing his JOSE/JWT edits first, then will do Connect<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> John is working on applying his smaller edits first<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> John said that IdP-initiated login is related to Account Chooser, audience validation<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> He will make another ticket about audience validation<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">WebFinger:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Paul is almost ready to publish an updated HTTPS-only WebFinger draft<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>