[OpenID-Specs-eKYC-IDA] Aggregated verified claims

Torsten Lodderstedt torsten at lodderstedt.net
Fri Mar 13 07:35:45 UTC 2020


What’s the difference?

> Am 13.03.2020 um 02:13 schrieb Anthony Nadalin via Openid-specs-ekyc-ida <openid-specs-ekyc-ida at lists.openid.net>:
> 
> Why not just support nested JWTs.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Openid-specs-ekyc-ida <openid-specs-ekyc-ida-bounces at lists.openid.net> On Behalf Of Achim Schlosser via Openid-specs-ekyc-ida
> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2020 5:04 PM
> To: Openid-specs-ekyc-ida at lists.openid.net
> Cc: Achim Schlosser <achim.schlosser at enid.eu>
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [OpenID-Specs-eKYC-IDA] Aggregated verified claims
> 
> Hi Torsten,
> 
> 
> Ok that makes sense.
> 
> Aggregated claims look really appealing in a eKYC scenario, given the possibility to have sign/encrypted JWTs from the different claim providers depending on which one was used. 
> 
> 
> Best
> 
> 
> Achim Schlosser
> 
> Sent from my IPhone
> 
> 
>> Am 12.03.2020 um 19:57 schrieb Achim Schlosser <achim.schlosser at enid.eu>:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> 
>> I’ve been reading through v09 and came across the aggregated claims examples (which I'm specifically interested in also in terms of implementation) and wanted to align on this. The example is he following: 
>> 
>> {
>>  "iss": "https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fserver.example.com&data=02%7C01%7Ctonynad%40microsoft.com%7C61b0d02530c9437de3ad08d7c6e2027f%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637196546313672090&sdata=mOaW6CgJDGhZmpbKhRCBedjGK72vNxExHXadFP1P%2Bk0%3D&reserved=0",
>>  "sub": "248289761001",
>>  "email": "mailto:janedoe at example.com",
>>  "email_verified": true,
>>  "_claim_names": {
>>    "verified_claims": "src1"
>>  },
>>  "_claim_sources": {
>>    "src1": {
>>      "JWT": "......"
>>    }
>>  }
>> }
>> 
>> This notation means that all verified_claims that are available / the user is willing to share are available in SRC1s JWT.
>> 
>> I would assume that the following is also possible, which basically uses the verified_claims object in details here:
>> 
>> {
>>  "iss": "https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fserver.example.com&data=02%7C01%7Ctonynad%40microsoft.com%7C61b0d02530c9437de3ad08d7c6e2027f%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637196546313672090&sdata=mOaW6CgJDGhZmpbKhRCBedjGK72vNxExHXadFP1P%2Bk0%3D&reserved=0",
>>  "sub": "248289761001",
>>  "email": "mailto:janedoe at example.com",
>>  "email_verified": true,
>>  "_claim_names": {
>>    "verified_claims": {
>>      "claims": {
>>        "given_name": "src1",
>>        "family_name": "src1",
>>        "birthdate": "src1"
>>      }
>>    }
>>  },
>>  "_claim_sources": {
>>    "src1": {
>>      "JWT": "......"
>>    }
>>  }
>> }
>> 
>> This would allow for explicitly listing the claims present as it is done for classical claims in line with the core specification. This would also support multiple aggregated claim sources with verified claims. 
>> 
>> Best
>> 
>> Achim
>> 
>> 
> -- 
> Openid-specs-ekyc-ida mailing list
> Openid-specs-ekyc-ida at lists.openid.net
> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.openid.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fopenid-specs-ekyc-ida&data=02%7C01%7Ctonynad%40microsoft.com%7C61b0d02530c9437de3ad08d7c6e2027f%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637196546313672090&sdata=dlR54JgjLMvuLWnRj3MpnfHM%2BTJgY0WXd4WRCkkXLvE%3D&reserved=0
> -- 
> Openid-specs-ekyc-ida mailing list
> Openid-specs-ekyc-ida at lists.openid.net
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ekyc-ida
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3629 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ekyc-ida/attachments/20200313/d2eefc79/attachment-0001.p7s>


More information about the Openid-specs-ekyc-ida mailing list