<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;
mso-ligatures:standardcontextual;}
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;
mso-ligatures:standardcontextual;}
@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 10-Apr-23<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Nat Sakimura<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Mike Jones<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Aaron Parecki<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Naveen CM<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Vittorio Bertocci<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Joseph Heenan<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Aaron Parecki<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Tobias Looker<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Kristina Yasuda<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dima Postnikov<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Events and Initiatives<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Our OpenID Workshop will be on Monday, April 17th<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Register at <a href="https://openid.net/2023/03/17/registration-workshop-at-microsoft/">
https://openid.net/2023/03/17/registration-workshop-at-microsoft/</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Registrations are due by tomorrow. Do it now!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> IIW immediately follows the OpenID Workshop<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> RSA is the week after IIW<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Vittorio will describe all the different OpenID logout mechanisms in a presentation at RSA<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> There's an OECD event on privacy and security the same week in Paris<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> OASIS is starting a working group on schemas for Verifiable Credentials, led by Abbie Barbir<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> EIC in Berlin is in three weeks<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">External Orgs<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> We sent a liaison statement to ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 27/WG 5 (Identity Management and Privacy)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">OpenID Connect Federation Specification Status<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Mike summarized current discussions about the OpenID Connect Federation specification<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Spec currently establishes cryptographic trust between participants using Entity Statements secured as signed JWTs<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Some also want us to enable the use of the Web PKI trust model<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> For instance, .well-known/openid-configuration and its "jwks-uri" value use this trust model<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> The GAIN POC uses Federation by also relies on the Web PKI trust model in some cases<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> This is used, for instance, to retrieve metadata from https .well-known endpoints<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Tobias spoke in favor of retrieving metadata from .well-known endpoints being conformant behavior<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> The Research and Education community using SAML-based federations explicitly chose not to rely on Web PKI<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> This was due, in part, due to past breaches of and problems with TLS certificates and certificate authorities<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> The Federation spec, to date, which targets this community's use cases, followed this example<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Some reviewers and deployers want to give deployers a choice of trust models<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> They want deployments depending upon Web PKI to be compliant with the specification<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Mike said that the editors agree that the next set of edits will normatively add that choice to the spec<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> At the same we're not going to break anything that is already in use<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> We'll be adding choices, not removing or breaking anything<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Then we plan to publish another Implementer's Draft<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> After that, unless developers and deployers tell us to do otherwise, we'll go for Final status soon thereafter<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Kristina expressed that there are currently readability challenges with the specification<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> She said that features are defined but the big picture is hard to understand<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Mike cited the example of the Messages and Standard specs from a decade ago<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> You had to read both of them together to get the big picture, which developers hated<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> We therefore merged them to create Core, which was *a lot* of work, but vastly improved readability<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Mike said that editing using PRs is like looking through small keyhole, making it hard to see the big picture<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Mike said that he plans to review and revise the spec in its entirety to improve its readability<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Kristina asked about potential renaming<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Mike said that Giuseppe is willing to shorten "OpenID Connect Federation" to "OpenID Federation"<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> This would parallel the use of "OpenID" by OpenID4VP and OpenID4VCI<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> We should seriously consider the impact of changing the existing branding when the spec is already in production use<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Kristina said that core functionality of the spec is trust establishment, and the name should reflect that<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Dima said that the Trust Registry Task Force in TrustOverIP is developing trust management mechanisms<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> The Federation spec could be applicable as a solution<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> He said that you need to be able to look up entities that you're interacting with<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">OpenID Foundation Process<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Nat brought up a process point about the use of "OpenID" in specification titles<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Mike wants to amend the process document to allow OpenID Foundation working groups to use "OpenID" in titles<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> In practice, this is already common usage by working groups<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Mike also wants to amend the process document to legitimize using hosted services controlled by the Foundation<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> such as bitbucket.org/openid and github.com/openid<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> While relevant to the working group, these are actually board-level discussions<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">FAPI Profile of Federation<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Joseph asked about having a FAPI profile for Federation<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Dima said that there are profiles for FAPI such as the Brazilian profile<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> These profiles pick and choose what parts of the specs they use<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> He said that a profile might need 50% of FAPI, 30% of Federation, 10% of eKYC-IDA, parts of CIBA, etc.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> ConnectID wants all-in-one certification profiles for its customers<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We announced the OpenID4VP vote today<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <a href="https://openid.net/2023/04/10/notice-of-vote-for-proposed-second-implementers-draft-of-openid-for-verifiable-presentations-specification/">
https://openid.net/2023/04/10/notice-of-vote-for-proposed-second-implementers-draft-of-openid-for-verifiable-presentations-specification/</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Voting opens Monday, April 17th - the day of the OpenID Workshop<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">PRs<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <a href="https://bitbucket.org/openid/connect/pull-requests/">
https://bitbucket.org/openid/connect/pull-requests/</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> PR #508: OID4VP editorial after the full read.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Oliver created PR #509 suggesting minor changes<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Kristina will merge it into her branch and then correct a few things<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Kristina will then merge and Mike will publish, updating the review blog post<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> PR #448: [Federation] Added appendix on using Web PKI cryptographic trust<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Mike described in-person discussions on the PR in Yokohama<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> He described the desire to use existing metadata locations<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> It would then be a deployment choice<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Kristina supported that<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Kristina said that we also discussed the philosophy of not trusting TLS<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> She said that there are multilateral federations that are willing to trust TLS<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Kristina said it will confuse people if the whole spec says not to trust TLS but then allows it sometimes<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Dima said that he sees a need to be able to profile the Federation spec<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> He said that GAIN is using Automatic Registration and doesn't need Explicit Registration implementation<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> At this point, we think this PR be replaced by the more comprehensive edits proposed by Mike earlier in the call<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> PR #463: removing the requirement around JSON-LD processing (Issue #1840)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Kristina said there is still an ongoing conversation, so this isn't ready to merge<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"> <a href="https://bitbucket.org/openid/connect/issues?status=new&status=open">
https://bitbucket.org/openid/connect/issues?status=new&status=open</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> #1912: Implementers that are willing to trust TLS<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Kristina wrote down some of what we discussed in Yokohama<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Lots of issue SPAM :-(<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Mike to delete<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> #1887: Wallet attestation in SIOPv2 (implementation considerations)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Discussed in person in Yokohama<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Depending upon how trust occurs, having a JWT attestation might be useful<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> (This is related to #1886)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> #1886: New client authentication method for Wallet attestation<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> This may require a new JWT attestation client authentication method<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> This is waiting for a concrete proposal<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Needed changes for next Implementer's Drafts<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> SIOPv2<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Add client_id_scheme<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Possibly refactor<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> OpenID4VCI<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Add client_id_scheme<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> There are several important PRs outstanding<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Cleaning up deferred issuance endpoint<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> There are PRs addressing feedback received, including from Taka<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Refresh implementation considerations will be added<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> There are jurisdictions requiring periodic resigning over data to keep the signatures fresh<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> It's unclear that managing changing claim values is required functionality<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> We discussed using access tokens issued to the wallet, when the wallet can be a public client<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> We shouldn't be using long-lived tokens with public clients<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> DPoP is recommended for public clients that want to reuse tokens<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Ideally they would be sender-constrained<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Federation<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Add description of option to use existing metadata in some profiles<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Add description of option to trust Web PKI in some profiles<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Technical issue about trust mark issuers<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Liaisons<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Nat asked people for quick review of his e-mail "Liaison statements to ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 27"<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Nat reported that we submitted several public comments on NISTR 8389 - Security Considerations for Open Banking<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> We also commented on the OECD Guidelines for Digital Identity<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> OECD guidelines were influential in creating GDPR<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 will be Thursday, April 13th at 7am Pacific Time<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>