[Openid-specs-risc] Issue #53 discussion

[Steve Venema]

Atul, Shayne, et al.,

I've been thinking a bit more about Issue #53
<https://github.com/openid/sharedsignals/issues/53> that we discussed on
this week's call. Could we use the pattern described by "aliases"
identifier format (see §3.2.8 of draft-ietf-secevent-subject-identifiers-17
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-secevent-subject-identifiers-17#name-aliases-identifier-format>)
to cover this use case? It seems well aligned with what the spec is trying
to capture here, but I'm pretty new to this stuff and might be totally off
base. Or is this draft secevent spec moribund from an SSF perspective?

If you like the idea, I'd be happy to draft up a PR for review/discussion.

Regards,

-Steve
--
[image: ForgeRock] <https://www.forgerock.com/> *Steve Venema*
Distinguished Engineer  |  ForgeRock
*t* +1 (425) 825-0855  |  *e* steve.venema at forgerock.com
*web* www.forgerock.com
------------------------------
ForgeRock values your *privacy* <https://www.forgerock.com/your-privacy>.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-risc/attachments/20230616/ada88ee7/attachment.html>