Re: [OAUTH-WG] review: draft-ietf-oauth-json-web-token-05

[David Chadwick <[e-mail]>]

I think you must have misread my email, since your reply seems to agree 
with mine, that the claim is always in doubt. My comment was about a 
credential

regards

David

On 30/12/2012 16:35, Anthony Nadalin wrote:
> Nope, disagree as a claim is always in doubt thus it has no proof, the proof comes in the verification
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Chadwick [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 12:20 AM
> To: Anthony Nadalin
> Cc: Mike Jones; IETF oauth WG
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] review: draft-ietf-oauth-json-web-token-05
>
> On 30/12/2012 00:28, Anthony Nadalin wrote:
>> By definition a claim is always in doubt thus it would not call it a
>> credential until it is verified
>
> No this is not correct, since you can have valid and invalid credentials. You present your credentials to the RP, and the RP verifies them based on the proof they contain.
>
> If you present a claim without any proof then it is not a credential and it cannot be verified (since it contains no proof) without the RP obtaining some proof information from elsewhere (such as showing it to the issuer and asking them if it is genuine or not).
>
> So I would say that in Oauth you can present a claim or a credential.
>
> regards
>
> David
>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
>> Of David Chadwick
>> Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 1:42 AM
>> To: Mike Jones
>> Cc: IETF oauth WG
>> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] review: draft-ietf-oauth-json-web-token-05
>>
>> If a claim provides proof then I would call it a credential not a
>> claim
>>
>> David
>>
>> On 29/12/2012 01:11, Mike Jones wrote:
>>> I found the X.1252 definition.  It is:
>>>
>>> *6.18 claim *[b-OED]: To state as being the case, without being able
>>> to give proof.
>>>
>>> That seems both a bit vague, and actually incorrect, as the JWT may
>>> include proof of the veracity of the claim.  Please see the updated
>>> JWT draft for a hopefully more useful “Claim” definition.
>>>
>>>                                                                Best
>>> wishes,
>>>
>>>                                                                -- Mike
>>>
>>> *From:*Mike Jones
>>> *Sent:* Sunday, December 23, 2012 1:03 PM
>>> *To:* Jeff Hodges; Nat Sakimura
>>> *Cc:* IETF oauth WG
>>> *Subject:* RE: [OAUTH-WG] review: draft-ietf-oauth-json-web-token-05
>>>
>>> What is the X.1252 definition?
>>>
>>> -- Mike
>>>
>>> *From:* Nat Sakimura
>>> *Sent:* ‎December‎ ‎23‎, ‎2012 ‎10‎:‎09‎ ‎AM
>>> *To:* =JeffH
>>> *CC:* Mike Jones, IETF oauth WG
>>> *Subject:* Re: [OAUTH-WG] review: draft-ietf-oauth-json-web-token-05
>>>
>>> Re definition of 'claim', as JWT is supposed to be generic, it may be
>>> better to go with the definition of X.1252 rather than OIDC.
>>>
>>> =nat via iPhone
>>>
>>> Dec 24, 2012 2:42、=JeffH <[e-mail]
>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> のメッセージ:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the replies, Jeff.  They make sense.  Particularly,
>>>>> thanks for the "JSON Text Object" suggestion.
>>>>
>>>> welcome, glad they made some sense.
>>>>
>>>> similarly, if one employs JSON arrays, I'd define a "JSON text array".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> For the "claims" definition, I'm actually prone to go with
>>>>> definitions based  on those in
>>>>> http://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-messages-1_0-13.html#termino
>>>>> l
>>>>> ogy-
>>>>> specifically:
>>>>>
>>>>> Claim
>>>>> A piece of information about an Entity that a Claims Provider
>>>>> asserts about that Entity.
>>>>> Claims Provider
>>>>> A system or service that can return Claims about an Entity.
>>>>> End-User
>>>>> A human user of a system or service.
>>>>> Entity
>>>>> Something that has a separate and distinct existence and that can
>>>>> be identified in context. An End-User is one example of an Entity.
>>>>
>>>> well, it seems to me, given the manner in which the JWT spec is
>>>> written, one can make the case that JWT claims in general aren't
>>>> necessarily about an Entity (as the latter term is used in the
>>>> context of the OpenID Connect specs), rather they're in general
>>>> simply assertions about something(s). this is because all
>>>> pre-defined
>>> JWT claim types are optional and all JWT semantics are left up to
>>> specs that profile (aka re-use) the JWT spec.
>>>>
>>>> HTH,
>>>>
>>>> =JeffH
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> OAuth mailing list
>>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OAuth mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OAuth mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>
>
>