[Openid-specs-mobile-profile] [E] Re: [Openid-specs-fapi] FYI: OpenID Implementer’s Drafts of Four MODRNA Specifications Approved
Bjorn.Hjelm at VerizonWireless.com
Mon May 15 19:55:47 UTC 2017
Thanks for taking the time to review the draft(s). First, John should be able to help set you up to get access to bitbucket to allow you to submit items for the issue tracker.
Second, are your comments against Client Initiated Backchannel Authentication, User Questioning API, both, or another of the four specifications that were approved as Implementer’s Draft?
From: Tom Jones [mailto:thomasclinganjones at gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 12:16 PM
To: Hjelm, Bjorn; Nat Sakimura
Subject: Re: [E] Re: [Openid-specs-fapi] FYI: OpenID Implementer’s Drafts of Four MODRNA Specifications Approved
I finally got time to review one of the documents, questioning, and went to the bitbucket site, only to find access denied.
My first problem was how to understand the spec at all with no overall architecture or threat model data flow diagram.
I take it that the doc is oriented to a phone company client residing on a user's smart phone?
I have some real problems with this from the user perspective.
The spec addresses privacy as tho it was only the user private information that was under attack.
The reality is that user attention is also precious and needs to be under user control.
This spec does not address the acquisition of user consent to receive any of the messages, or to control which one can be supplied.
That would required a set of (claims?) that the user can consent to receive.
Nat, the same comments would apply to notices from any FI. I consent to receive some SMS from my various FIs and am given a good measure of control about which and how often.
We need that as well as inclusion of user attention in any privacy statement.
On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Hjelm, Bjorn <Bjorn.Hjelm at verizonwireless.com<mailto:Bjorn.Hjelm at verizonwireless.com>> wrote:
We would appreciate any input on any of the four specifications. Please post the comments to the MODRNA Issue Tracker (https://bitbucket.org/openid/mobile/issues<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__bitbucket.org_openid_mobile_issues&d=DwMFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=NMZJHCV8pjvGIH2fTx9z6l7g7-V-a2xW7ISf9uHdz0A&m=atBJ-6H_z962nk3eN3GXHnp6TESqTje2b8L7syzH1vk&s=e30N3cb-5spp8lgcYCjT5q7ormFIlDDY0UnqdfGnq2o&e=>).
From: Openid-specs-fapi [mailto:openid-specs-fapi-bounces at lists.openid.net<mailto:openid-specs-fapi-bounces at lists.openid.net>] On Behalf Of Tom Jones via Openid-specs-fapi
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2017 8:49 AM
To: Nat Sakimura; Financial API Working Group List
Subject: [E] Re: [Openid-specs-fapi] FYI: OpenID Implementer’s Drafts of Four MODRNA Specifications Approved
Yes. Especially man-in-browser.
But as the sole objector to those specs i would like to avoid exchanging any personal data between FIs.
It was the spec that exchanged personal data between phone companies that i found objectionable.
I would wish that any future vote not lump multiple specs into one ballot.
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 2:45 AM, Nat Sakimura via Openid-specs-fapi <openid-specs-fapi at lists.openid.net<mailto:openid-specs-fapi at lists.openid.net>> wrote:
Now that they are Implementer's draft and the IPR is locked in, we can safely refer to them. User questioning and Backchannel login are really interesting for us. They can mitigate the risk of man-in-the-browser. It has been a bit unfortunate timing-wise, but we should consider adding one of them at least in the next revision. Is there an appetite to bite them?
Research Fellow, Nomura Research Institute
Chairman of the Board, OpenID Foundation
Openid-specs-fapi mailing list
Openid-specs-fapi at lists.openid.net<mailto:Openid-specs-fapi at lists.openid.net>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Openid-specs-mobile-profile