Re: [Txauth] Claims [was: - Dictionary]

Dick Hardt <> Fri, 24 July 2020 17:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F6243A0D09 for <>; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 10:51:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 jgSQoglevTar for <>; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 10:51:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::130]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F0FE63A10DD for <>; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 10:50:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id b11so5623108lfe.10 for <>; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 10:50:26 -0700 (PDT)
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=ulOK73Je97H94uJDHOozLb4mTcjWmT/wMRLAQBuSflM=; b=L5oGzeAJNefG0Uibflp33cwocpiWGekSB5HYG4CMyZ20Tuxxze38SNN0gzunndYrJU 5S7rjp6Dnw28rDa213fnYRlhCqmTU+nqtsuvSosHx5WLIkK2hjgZ54aq9OEd4othlMIC 2VIhlyHq8LWEYweduEbBc4u9Vq1BW+N9IpJFS7NrVNsylZBF4PnjGh2RXoYbgwVSVjAc QVeOLN+vHBFw8mxN+ydtTH1hMeLLe9bKlYhoPFGm2SGnHmbqb4Ku3mh/zo6xTRfs6o+x Z7GBWPoG+4ipLESN+jTrn637Fu/XA44aw4Go3VniVHNSJGfO3+enaEsWb/BSGt2a23Oo hxsw==
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=ulOK73Je97H94uJDHOozLb4mTcjWmT/wMRLAQBuSflM=; b=YXRNyxbzCW5cvTmJzeoddlRv8n4HafvhPVWFOrjQwU4E1+QyHAaUcd5zE+uPPtKPdt bRPkUbYqShdDNdE7EU6CfbA3WnuT8frbw0thWimYI9LHb7kXNLrGj+IWSCXWMqKvaBaL cJR6X3ZEQ2UNbgwGaGdjki6Bu75QFpRFHbHAGu0d69tYpopxaatAxFNrDnU6L6cFIVua KYDTgTb257PVfy5wKplErBTxOjcQk3Fozp9AL1eXwgZe7Pnf73Px3JTyktStRc07jtLV JnjG6Epg8Kah3+H+gsrmc1fMAKBg8JpF10q8nkBgqOr3lyGmDbDuR2lomJ6wMi5ouei8 Kv8w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530v1fP574D915FIkVVL8XzmAc8Y674pMCGpPv2WYDB1PT6W5KBK /R0HHlnsIcYTEfC+cTZSVhA5IrRlS6RHuAoAehk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxRCSyzfuFid/a8AixokvAeN5W/7m76/9yeMihHnyaAhpo8BL38Nq0RLVemoA4IyICM+Eg/BmW2JtzRoMxYamI=
X-Received: by 2002:ac2:5f48:: with SMTP id 8mr5522176lfz.157.1595613024990; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 10:50:24 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Dick Hardt <>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2020 10:49:48 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: Tom Jones <>
Cc: Justin Richer <>, Francis Pouatcha <>,, Denis <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000008dbb9605ab339be7"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Txauth] Claims [was: - Dictionary]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2020 17:51:24 -0000

Hi Tom, thanks for sharing.

I would consider the guardianship use case to be issuing an access token,
not claims, as it is being used to access an RS.

In my view, we keep Claims in GNAP to be only about the User, and the only
consumer of the Claims is the Client the User is using. This keeps Claims
from being overly complex.


On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 10:32 AM Tom Jones <>

> Nat and I just had this discussion about claims & the claims aggregation
> spec.
> An example about claims that are not entirely about the user is the
> gurdian ship case.
> That case can be solved by creating a signed set if claims (which needs a
> name) from the RO granting approval to the user to make a "ID Token"
> (whatever) from the as to the client to be passed to the RS.
> my suggesting is that claim as not necessarily attributes and the data
> about the ro from the rs are distinct from the claims about the user from
> the as.
> I do not believe that claims aggregation is about claims (at least not
> often).
> so then the data from. the ro would never be a claim, even tho it was
> identical in form and substance from the claim produced by the as.
> Peace ..tom
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 10:25 AM Dick Hardt <> wrote:
>> In OpenID Connect (OIDC), the Client can obtain Claims directly from the
>> OP in an ID Token, or the Client can obtain Claims using an access token to
>> call the UserInfo endpoint, a Protected Resource[1].
>> The Claims are about the User (not a RO).
>> In XAuth, I'm proposing the Client may obtain bare claims from the GS
>> directly in addition to the mechanisms in ODIC.
>> So I don't think we are changing the definition of Claim from how it has
>> been used in OIDC, and I fail to see any reason to NOT use Claim.
>> Justin: you allude to Claims being about a party other than the User.
>> Would you provide an example?
>> /Dick
>> [1]
>> UserInfo Endpoint
>> Protected Resource that, when presented with an Access Token by the
>> Client, returns authorized information about the End-User represented by
>> the corresponding Authorization Grant. The UserInfo Endpoint URL MUST use
>> the https scheme and MAY contain port, path, and query parameter components.
>> ᐧ
>> On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 5:58 AM Justin Richer <> wrote:
>>> I want to focus on one aspect here:
>>>> A Claim is a well understood term in the field. We should use it. It is
>>>> still a Claim if it comes directly from the GS or from an RS.
>>> I do not understand why a Resource release by an RS shall be h to as a
>>> claim, even if the content of the Resource is an assertion. It will lead to
>>> confusion. If we limit claims to information GS releases into Token, User
>>> Info, and other objects it returns, this will help separate
>>> responsibilities between GS and RS. As soon as RS services and information,
>>> this is called a Resource, no matter the nature of the content of that
>>> information.
>>> This is exactly why I don’t think we should use “claim” in the way that
>>> we’re using it. Yes, a “claim” could come back through an RS — but in the
>>> context of GNAP, that makes it a resource. So we need a different word for
>>> data coming back directly from the AS to the client. Sometimes it’s going
>>> to be about the user, and that’s what we’re going to focus on here, but
>>> since you can also get information about the user from a resource we can’t
>>> just call it a “claim”. I think this has been at the heart of a lot of
>>> confusion in recent threads, as well as confusion about the scope of the
>>> inclusion of identity in the GNAP protocol.
>>> So let’s let “claim” mean what it already does, and let’s find a way to
>>> differentiate between when an item, claim or otherwise,  comes as part of a
>>> resource and when it comes back directly. This is an important
>>> differentiating feature for GNAP.
>>> Some straw man ideas, none of which I’m particularly in love with:
>>>  - direct data
>>>  - properties
>>>  - details
>>>  - statements
>>> The important thing here is that it’s not necessarily :about: the RO,
>>> and that it is :not: in a resource.
>>> Any other thoughts?
>>>  — Justin