<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">On Feb 18, 2022, at 1:34 AM, Torsten Lodderstedt via Openid-specs-ab <<a href="mailto:openid-specs-ab@lists.openid.net" class="">openid-specs-ab@lists.openid.net</a>> wrote:<br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" class=""><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Hi,<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">On issue 1400.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1;"><div class="" style="margin: 0in; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">Kristina said that DW indicated on the last Connect call that Ping Identity plans to use "iss" for a trust framework reference<o:p class=""></o:p></div><div class="" style="margin: 0in; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"> Torsten said that a trust framework reference could be included elsewhere in the ID Token</div></div></blockquote></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I also mentioned that OpenID Connect 4 Identity Assurance (<a href="https://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-4-identity-assurance-1_0-ID3.html" class="">https://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-4-identity-assurance-1_0-ID3.html</a>) defines syntax for conveying information about trust frameworks and so on. I suggest to use this as basis for solving Ping’s requirements. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">We also had a good discussion about trust frameworks and schemes in the context of OIDC4VPs. David has created a PR: <a href="https://bitbucket.org/openid/connect/pull-requests/107" class="">https://bitbucket.org/openid/connect/pull-requests/107</a></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">@DW: May I ask you to fill an issue with your requirements? </div><div class=""><br class=""></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>What would you like to see in particular other than my objections and justifications as currently stated on issue #1400?</div><div><br class=""></div><div>To be clear, we are looking to preserve existing Core, Discovery, and Federation functionality in SIOP v2, not to attempt to add some of it back via additional specifications. As such, PR #107 is insufficient.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>-DW</div><div><br class=""></div></body></html>