Re: [OAUTH-WG] November Interim meeting on WebID/IsLoggedIn followup

Sam Goto <> Mon, 25 January 2021 23:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5573E3A19E6 for <>; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 15:09:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.699
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ybBS6_Dhn_K5 for <>; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 15:09:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d36]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 76C1C3A19C3 for <>; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 15:09:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id n2so30091473iom.7 for <>; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 15:09:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=w2k1aev//TcNnXluRbka8raobILQ6VF9f/J2D4B0270=; b=f4UcMrNiUovxtQy1EAVylxn80+jSAvfJfAtmVkc1V+x7wfoCdnjJReK0PozPZf4EYC yqE4CCYGjTcRpB8k+CHfz5rlW4M01wFOfhiHlhZ8lBiXz3ldnbXOagaD3WQGGB42jDrN 0fSqDhg4G2v9D6/4HzHX2zkO2r5Qz9/5jLcu+VF79dp5e1RCfM8JqB0pKLi9sFzOCaR3 t6Hsgd9ja8v7eiD36PwKEGLgEHpL07nbnZJl51ZDTMhsI/W/XAtushZ4ZDQ+uRQ1f/ZX GZDZAyQBzI46ilyQw9o+/m8n4nlTgG0SwEihF4GNvaIy8Yhl2xbBrYjjPshCQqytqR4I kAgw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=w2k1aev//TcNnXluRbka8raobILQ6VF9f/J2D4B0270=; b=f6m87TeerLhA5TCLXFW339gMutXQh7BMUE4SojwVTtR1DwjMPXzXPy0UT/nJjTjtwT RY9DwjwUIwhVP/0WXgQbm2/p7neJR7z9q6wF+DH2dhTTb4bQRbWxeFyQVelVs4bL2gKG 4pQrZuLQIdPfILmtQGR/pGM6HDr7sbcAR+tkO1nYzGBwrW6VQIkiXgvJpvV/ro9QwFd9 VVlqU4WGNvzkBABrDUZXkVpYnz/dSlpJPie9QY+K7OPIGABb2cWJEpxZ8/nj7Fnb8xr4 sc5z27AfSzEUO0HwFpa1elhf5S6Q2zHHNqQcwyUZErKiSQVTPJRG2WlV4JBGeFZHDEmQ qGUw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531l7aOlk/3cU4GmqK2TcDnAuuCdTEEuxVoMXRGbRGD1zSHOO7pA 2Gy4piM2YRoLO78ehXLelH59zbnlQfpg6WYBj/Yg7Q==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzvA1HtcrkL2H3IiiwC0iJ2WTuiknQdDrkfS+TY2adkuiXwact2Q+qGqTrkBuI5HNlCym7SyWNziPl44Dcsxuc=
X-Received: by 2002:a02:634b:: with SMTP id j72mr2577629jac.106.1611616184425; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 15:09:44 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Sam Goto <>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2021 15:09:33 -0800
Message-ID: <>
To: Vittorio Bertocci <>
Cc: "" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003089ee05b9c1a209"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] November Interim meeting on WebID/IsLoggedIn followup
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2021 23:09:47 -0000

On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 11:30 AM Vittorio Bertocci <vittorio.bertocci=> wrote:

> Dear all,
> This is a followup on the actions we agreed upon during the November
> interim meeting in November (notes in
> Apologies for the delay.
> The TL;DR is that we decided it might be useful to put together a document
> that describes the identity scenarios relying on current browser features
> and that we’d like to preserve.
> Such document should help grounding discussions with browser vendors by
> making it easy to pinpoint how specific changes might impair functionality
> in important scenarios, and what functionality we are trying to preserve
> (in case the new browser feature can offer alternate path to the same
> outcomes).
> Tackling on all the possible scenarios is too big a task for George and
> myself alone, hence we devised a proposed mechanism to generate and
> maintain that list collaboratively.
> You can find a framing proposal in
> and the github repo workspace
> Thanks to Daniel and Torsten for their help on figuring out how to use
> mmark to write internet drafts.
> We do have a list of candidate scenarios, but before going too deep in it
> we wanted to give the group the chance to take a look at the model and get
> your feedback before we charge down that path. This is a pretty unusual
> collaboration model and getting it to work might be tricky.
> Please let us know what you think!

Thanks Vittorio for kicking this off and I just wanted to stop by and say
that this seems like a wonderful starting point. I read your introduction
(which I think has done a great job in capturing the intent), your
template, and your initial test use case and I think this is a great
starting point.

More specifically:

- I really like how you are positioning this effort.
- I really like the section on scoping
primarily on what not to cover: any scenario not currently in mainstream. I
know this is an over categorization, and I don't believe this was your
intent, but just for clarification, we would welcome scenarios under
"consumers" , "EDU" in addition to "enterprises" (I get the irony of the
section above "classifying most other cases as enterprise use cases hence
solvable by exceptions and local business policies" -- point taken).
- The template
LGTM. There is a chance it will evolve as we write more and we read more,
but this is a good starting point. Here are a few ways that I think this
could evolve:
  - perhaps a section with "Possible
technologies/announcements/APIs/features that may pose a risk to this
scenario" would be constructive to indicate "X (use case) breaks with Y
(browser API)".
  - I have a sense that we would want to extend/break down "Privacy
Considerations". One way to make this more concrete, is possibly to
cross-reference one of the privacy threat models (e.g. ours is here: Privacy
Threat Model
<>) so
that we can collect something like "X (use case) conflicts with Y (privacy
threat)". Cross-referencing the threat model will also be useful in giving
you a sense of the threats we are set to address too.

I'll be watching the repository and looking forward to hearing from you,

Thanks again,


> Cheers
> G&V
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list