<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 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@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;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
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="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Spec Call Notes 14-Dec-20<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Mike Jones<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Nat Sakimura<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">John Bradley<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Tony Nadalin<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Kristina Yasuda<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Brian Campbell<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Adam Lemmon<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Tim Cappalli<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Kim Cameron<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Edmund Jay<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Tom Jones<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Tobias Looker<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Scope of Initial SIOP V2 Work<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Discussion brought about in part by contributed SIOP V2 Draft<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <a href="https://bitbucket.org/openid/connect/src/master/openid-connect-self-issued-v2-1_0.md">
https://bitbucket.org/openid/connect/src/master/openid-connect-self-issued-v2-1_0.md</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Also related to the SIOP Requirements draft<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <a href="https://bitbucket.org/openid/connect/src/master/SIOP/siop-requirements.md">
https://bitbucket.org/openid/connect/src/master/SIOP/siop-requirements.md</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Agreement on areas that are in scope:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Ability to have optional level of indirection to get self-issued keys<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Optionally addressing keys by reference rather than by value<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Ability to rotate keys for the same subject<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> RP Registration<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Mike: The RP is going to have to be able to say things to the OP about what it supports<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Such as cryptographic algorithms and possibly identifier types<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Tobias agreed<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Tobias suggested that we use request-bound client registry - to allow for a level of indirection<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> OP Discovery<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Mike: The OP is going to have to be able to say things to the RP about what it supports<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> The one-size-fits-all approach in SIOP V1 didn't hold up well over time<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Tom pointed out that WebID has a metadata endpoint<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> He said that we could still get changes into that if we act quickly<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Tobias: Some SIOP providers that are PWAs could still use .well-known based discovery<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">May be an implementation requirement for some but not others:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> One of the ways to optionally address keys by reference is a DID<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Scopes of work that may apply more broadly than SIOP:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Account recovery - when an ID becomes invalid<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> John notes that a similar thing is being proposed in FIDO2<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> John called it a subject proof mechanism<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> John said that's easier if you still have access to the old subject<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> The new subject needs to be signed by the old subject<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Mike said that this is related to the OpenID 2.0 to OpenID Connect Migrating Spec<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> That was separable work from the core protocol<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> One could imagine multiple such mechanisms trusted by RPs<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> John and Mike said that this is related to the MODRNA account porting work<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> John said that rotating keys is separate than rotating identifiers<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> This is bigger than just SIOP as it also applies to third-party issued identities<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Portable Identifiers<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Could apply to both third party OPs and self-issued OPs<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> John agrees that 3rd party versus self-issued is an artificial distinction<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Tony has an issue with understanding what portable identifiers means<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Tobias suggested that we talk about cryptographically verified identifiers<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Kim suggested that we call them domain-free identifiers<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Like account migration, this is bigger than just self-issued<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> John likes visualizing free-range identifiers (like chickens)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Kim said that they're not scoped to walled gardens<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Mike said that he misses his i-names<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Kim said that they would have to be cryptographically provable<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> John said that the key distinction is whether the individual or the IdP controls the key material<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Related Discussions<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Definitions<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Tobias asserted that he's increasingly viewing SIOP as an umbrella term for additional extensions<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Kristina said that she views SIOP as OPs that are not ASs<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Downstream Authentication<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Tony stated that he has an issue with downstream authentication<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> He thought that it wasn't necessarily in scope for Connect<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> John asked Tony to clarify<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Tony said that there's a difference between proving that you own an identity and using it to authenticate<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Mike said that proof of ownership is a precondition for authentication but doesn't imply it<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Claims Binding<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Nat said that we should discuss binding claims to presenters<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> John agreed with that<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Nat said that in the Claims Aggregation draft, the issuer of the claims can include the subject identifier<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Tom said that that doesn't work for his use cases<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Nat said that this is one way to do it<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Tobias agreed that there are multiple solution options, as did Tony<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Tobias said that claims binding includes both the process of establishing the binding and how they are presented and authenticated<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Tony said that he would stay away from authenticating<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">RP-Initiated Login Features<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> We ran out of time to discuss this<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Events<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> We ran out of time to discuss this<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">External Organizations<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> We ran out of time to discuss this<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Next Call<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> The next call is on Thursday, December 17th at 7am Pacific Time<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>