[Openid-specs-risc] Call notes

[Atul Tulshibagwale]

Hi all,
Given the low attendance today, it seems like not everyone has the weekly
invite. Please note that the working group is now meeting weekly. The calendar
on the OpenID website <https://openid.net/calendar/> has the meeting
details, but it could be that the meeting invite is not appearing
correctly, and so not being reflected automatically in everyone's calendars.

Here are the call notes for today's call. They are also stored here
<https://hackmd.io/@oidf-wg-sse/wg-meeting-20230613>:

Thanks,
Atul

-- 

<https://sgnl.ai>

Atul Tulshibagwale

CTO

<https://linkedin.com/in/tulshi> <https://twitter.com/zirotrust>
<atul at sgnl.ai>

WG Meeting: 2023-06-13 <https://hackmd.io/CtVAbTmcTz6DWTlSLciCqA#Agenda>
Agenda

   - Standardize OAuth scopes for SSF setup (Email from Eric 5/31)
   - PR #69 <https://github.com/openid/sharedsignals/pull/69> Should it be
   ‘method’ or ‘delivery_method’
   - Open PR #50 “Add stream exists behavior”
   <https://github.com/openid/sharedsignals/pull/50> Discussion
   - Open PR #57 “Add clarifications”
   <https://github.com/openid/sharedsignals/pull/57> Discussion
   - Issue #53 <https://github.com/openid/sharedsignals/issues/53> Complex
   Subjects Should Have a Format Field

<https://hackmd.io/CtVAbTmcTz6DWTlSLciCqA#Attendees>Attendees

   - Steve Venema (ForgeRock)
   - Atul Tulshibagwale (SGNL)
   - Victor Lu (Independent)
   - Nancy Cam Winget (Cisco)
   -

<https://hackmd.io/CtVAbTmcTz6DWTlSLciCqA#Notes>Notes
<https://hackmd.io/CtVAbTmcTz6DWTlSLciCqA#Standardize-OAuth-scope>Standardize
OAuth scope

   - [Steve] Needs to be finalized before interop testing
   - [Atul] Could be a part of the SSF spec
   - [Atul] Need more participation from Eric or others who have background
   on this issue

<https://hackmd.io/CtVAbTmcTz6DWTlSLciCqA#PR-69---%E2%80%98method%E2%80%99-or-%E2%80%98delivery_method%E2%80%99>PR
69 - ‘method’ or ‘delivery_method’

   - [Tim] We should follow the spec, and update the examples
   - [Tim] One open comment. The resolution seems pretty clear.
   - [Tim] The possible use of multiple methods (push AND poll) is a bigger
   discussion and should be a separate issue
   - [Atul] Comment resolved, because there doesn’t seem to be ambiguity.

<https://hackmd.io/CtVAbTmcTz6DWTlSLciCqA#PR-50>PR 50

   - [Tim] Pulling suggested changes right now and updating the text.

<https://hackmd.io/CtVAbTmcTz6DWTlSLciCqA#Issue-53>Issue #53

   - Options discussed:
      - Have a field named “format”, with the value “complex” and have
      another field named “value”, which has the complex subject value
      - Have a field named “complex”, whose value is the complex subject
      value
      - Have an array instead of a JSON object, which could be used for
      both simple and complex subjects. If the array only has one
element, it’s a
      simple subject. If it has more than one it is a complex subject. We will
      need to specify that the same field cannot repeat in the array
   - Atul to send email asking for resolution
   - Agreed to decide in next weekly meeting

"subject" : {
    "complex": {
        "user" : {
            "format": "email",
            "email": "bar at example.com"
        },
        "tenant" : {
            "format": "iss_sub",
            "iss" : "http://example.com/idp1",
            "sub" : "1234"
        }
    }}

<https://hackmd.io/CtVAbTmcTz6DWTlSLciCqA#Action-Items>Action Items

   - Atul to ask resolution on Issue #53
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-risc/attachments/20230613/719bd331/attachment-0001.html>