[OpenID-Specs-eKYC-IDA] Move transaction specific purpose out of the main specification

[Bjorn Hjelm]

Axel,
As noted, Dima has created a draft intended for IETF on purpose based on
the discussions in the eKYC-IDA working group. Until introduced, we don't
know the feedback from the IETF community on this proposal but it's my
understanding that this isn't the first time this topic has been discussed
within IETF. There's also a similar discussion about purpose taking place
in the DPC working group worth noting that may impact the approach of a
technical specification.

As Dima is traveling, I believe he'll add some additional details and
insight to this e-mail thread.

Finally, I would highly encourage CAMARA to take issue to the OpenID
Foundation when it relates to parameter usage (as mentioned about tweaking
purpose into scopes) to ensure that the OpenID Connect specifications and
profiles are utilized in accordance to its purpose and that the Foundation
has offered up the wealth of knowledge that exists within the Foundation to
assist CAMARA.

Kind Regards,
Bjorn

On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 3:35 AM Axel.Nennker--- via Openid-specs-ekyc-ida <
openid-specs-ekyc-ida at lists.openid.net> wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
>
> in Camara <https://github.com/camaraproject/IdentityAndConsentManagement/>
> there is agreement that we need something like the purpose parameter that
> was removed from ekyc-ida with this issue.
>
>
> https://bitbucket.org/openid/ekyc-ida/issues/1386/move-transaction-specific-purpose-out-of
>
>
>
> We referenced the section from the ekyc-ida spec on the purpose parameter
> and wanted to use it.
>
>
> https://github.com/AxelNennker/IdentityAndConsentManagement/blob/camara_oidc_profile/documentation/CAMARA-Security-Interoperability.md#purpose
>
>
> Purpose
>
> A transaction specific request parameter purpose as specified in
> openid-connect-4-identity-assurance-1_0-13
> <https://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-4-identity-assurance-1_0.html#name-transaction-specific-purpos>
> MUST be used to allow a SP to state the purpose for the transfer of
> End-User data it is asking for. The purpose string MUST use below format
> for interoperability
>
> dpv:<dpvValue>
>
> <dpvValue> is coming from W3C DPV purpose definition
> <https://w3c.github.io/dpv/dpv/#vocab-purpose>
>
> Then, later,  we discovered that ekyc-ida removed that parameter
> definition from the ekyc-ida protocol, bummer.
>
>
>
> We found that @dima at postnikov.net <dima at postnikov.net> started writing a
> new Internet Draft for "purpose" in Oauth2.
>
>
> https://cdn.connectid.com.au/specifications/oauth2-purpose-01.html#name-transaction-specific-purpos
>
>
>
> Deutsche Telekom would support that draft. Other Camara member as well,
> probably.
>
> We, DT, are willing to contribute to the new draft.
>
>
>
> In Camara we envisioned that the value of the purpose parameter is ONE
> from the W3C DPV purpose definition.
>
> We think that the value should not be a string provided by the client but
> from a fixed list an that the AZ then shows the end user a text that
> matches the user's and the AZ/RP's legislation/jurisdiction for that
> purpose.
>
>
>
> An end user might give their consent to a location-service for the purpose
> of account takeover protection but not for some other purpose.
>
> A mobile banking app might ask for consent for a location-service, that
> helps the user find the nearest ATM, but the user does give their consent
> for this convenience function.
>
> A mobile banking app might ask for consent for a location-service, that
> validates that the user's mobile phone is in the vincinity of the ATM the
> user is withdrawing money from – and the end user is willing to get that
> protection.
>
> Or the client might have a legitimate-interest
> <https://w3c.github.io/dpv/dpv/#LegitimateInterest> in using some API
> like location-service or sim-swap.
>
>
>
> The removed ekyc-ida purpose parameter sounds like the CIBA
> binding_message parameter.
>
>
> https://openid.net/specs/openid-client-initiated-backchannel-authentication-core-1_0.html#auth_request
>
>
>
> Camara also discussed tweaking purpose into scopes, but that did not turn
> out well. Mainly, I think, because technical scopes have very little
> relationship with legislation/jurisdiction.
>
>
>
> Could you please provide some context on why ekyc-ida removed the purpose
> parameter?
>
> And, is there initial feedback from IETF Oauth2 WG on the new draft?
>
>
>
> Kind regards
>
> Axel
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Openid-specs-ekyc-ida mailing list
> Openid-specs-ekyc-ida at lists.openid.net
> https://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ekyc-ida
>


-- 
Kind Regards,
Bjorn
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ekyc-ida/attachments/20240424/e43e0d8b/attachment-0001.html>