<div dir="ltr">In as much as I value the discussion, the inconsistency has to be removed from the spec. <div><br><div>I talked with John and came up with modified definition of Identity and Identifier. I can live with the following and the definition of Claims. <div>
Now you can say Claimed Identifier and Claimed Identity. If you have "Claim" in the definition of these, you cannot. </div><div><br></div>Identity<br><br><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;border:none;padding:0px">
Set of pieces of information related to an entity</blockquote><br>Identifier<br><br><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;border:none;padding:0px">String within the scope of issuer namespace that allows clients to correlate one or more assertions about an entity. </blockquote>
<br>For the MUST in the offline access case, my proposed text still keeps all the MUSTs. I have just qualified them instead of being unconditional, which is a right thing to do, then moved to Privacy Consideration section as a normative text, as this really is a privacy issue and not interoperability issue, and is important enough to bring it up in the light of privacy so that privacy compliance officers will notice. <br>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2013/6/5 Mike Jones <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Michael.Jones@microsoft.com" target="_blank">Michael.Jones@microsoft.com</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Being asserted is what makes a claim a claim. If they were indisputable truth, they wouldn’t be claims. We have to leave that in.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">I’m actually not happy with suggestions that we significantly revise core definitions that have been extensively reviewed and agreed to by the working group
before they were added to the specs. I know that the “claim” definition was one that was extensively discussed. Changing it is the wrong thing to be doing at this point. We should be trying to finish – not changing everything around when the current definitions
are already working.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">If you believe that we need to use “attribute”, the onus is on you to provide specific proposed alternative language. But I can’t agree to gutting the meaning
of Claim, since it’s so central to what OpenID Connect is about.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> -- Mike<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> Nat Sakimura [mailto:<a href="mailto:sakimura@gmail.com" target="_blank">sakimura@gmail.com</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, June 04, 2013 4:02 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Mike Jones<br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:openid-specs-ab@lists.openid.net" target="_blank">openid-specs-ab@lists.openid.net</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Openid-specs-ab] Messages Review 2<u></u><u></u></span></p><div><div class="h5">
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks Mike. <u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Just quickly getting back on "Claims". <u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I have removed the notion of being "asserted" from the definition of "Claim" since we are using "Claim" in the sense of "Attribute", which does not have the notion of being "asserted". Attributes are there whether or not it is asserted
by somebody or not. <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">If you really want the notion of "asserted" in the definition of "Claim", we have to use "Attribute" instead in several instances. I am happier that way. Do you really want to go there? <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Simpler way is just to drop the notion of being asserted from the definition of Claim and put the notion into Claims Provider definition. That's what I did, in the interest of time. <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">2013/6/5 Mike Jones <<a href="mailto:Michael.Jones@microsoft.com" target="_blank">Michael.Jones@microsoft.com</a>><u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">My comments added to the attached version.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">
<a href="mailto:openid-specs-ab-bounces@lists.openid.net" target="_blank">openid-specs-ab-bounces@lists.openid.net</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:openid-specs-ab-bounces@lists.openid.net" target="_blank">openid-specs-ab-bounces@lists.openid.net</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Nat Sakimura<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, June 04, 2013 4:12 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:openid-specs-ab@lists.openid.net" target="_blank">openid-specs-ab@lists.openid.net</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [Openid-specs-ab] Messages Review 2</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Now I have completed the review of Messages apart from section 2.9 and Self-issued related things. <u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Many errors and omissions. On March 1, somehow, HTTP binding was introduced to UserInfo endpoint. Such a binding belongs to Standard, and not here. Since there was no commit message,
the mail/minutes, and tickets to the effect, it took me quite a while to locate when and on what commit it had happened. <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Some of the MUST requirements around explicit consent are too strong and does not account for governmental, enterprise, and consumer protection use cases. Such strong requirements
can be written as a sector specific profile, but not as a base spec. <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br clear="all">
<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">--
<br>
Nat Sakimura (=nat)<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Chairman, OpenID Foundation<br>
<a href="http://nat.sakimura.org/" target="_blank">http://nat.sakimura.org/</a><br>
@_nat_en<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br clear="all">
<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- <br>
Nat Sakimura (=nat)<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Chairman, OpenID Foundation<br>
<a href="http://nat.sakimura.org/" target="_blank">http://nat.sakimura.org/</a><br>
@_nat_en<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div></div></div>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>Nat Sakimura (=nat)<div>Chairman, OpenID Foundation<br><a href="http://nat.sakimura.org/" target="_blank">http://nat.sakimura.org/</a><br>@_nat_en</div>
</div></div></div></div>