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

Dick Hardt <> Fri, 24 July 2020 19:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83AEA3A0AE8 for <>; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 12:58:41 -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 VhUpA0peGvJn for <>; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 12:58:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 08CC63A0AE7 for <>; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 12:58:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id s9so5824386lfs.4 for <>; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 12:58:38 -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=WLkWi7gznqUpZTL1hTDj04F4Cd8TlhdwpjnDNC/T7D8=; b=OMxJgH7pC0YW3yFLP6LtQFE1q4QbSAeNKIUiyyTtb/gnDZSSNnfzFHpY5k9oDMZVBV zVNEzJ55xUJOxvEabt/Du/J8tdynsmkk4WPXm8IsJCHln2e6GdBD9/F8jDG6RZ4MTVGd +SnRDnLJCDcV9lOsoZheb7VtOlTSWwd/S7gUnS8Pj+NpBeR23mWMMUjrNo5O/rUaBVsD EK8g1VkTNfQwTEfCeMGeQDDuDh8JJbv88Jwog/RF262nhu9eUZnJIjMsphZ+83AxuutC sz8DzHBv+MWYiioQU8ftmmBx6uDtJwrQlDQcp2StwcdBv90v8y9ug2t9upqy0ziLFbBl H6Mw==
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=WLkWi7gznqUpZTL1hTDj04F4Cd8TlhdwpjnDNC/T7D8=; b=IcRzMCPkpxBXtsnudOmuPm24Rzk7pntvpC/soFYNU7EmBG7o+vFQQh6tSLDRcEp4Zb lCfijyqt69Fysa0px5gdLJcPjjAkPzNZuBCYfh+BXS2/vsJe7j3lc7uU8cyra1DKKIcF Ls5XQIuBe0mHnYrLTNb2flT+/5xssiVB0uQ5VY5ZRqxL/KXerANxOejcOlj7MMw5Vcvz V6cGHBrzkwnvKPNLX9BY9+y9wdsLFuOQYHB8vfg77iB7xUMxVhejD3snm+lhaAt65CSu +Lonp3qvcBs6jSe+tIJz3GbuK++FQ8drjaPBGDrf4o3DZroPwVELsda2WGgYor1X1/od PBFg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5339hPTjiNbEXbpQLDpYhpF0r438O+eNPQVjCVy15JioSRynPQqT b4hqt5V5f4OX3hDagk92Dh6rIxo4Z0PPhv0DeGw=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzdGJvkXRZT7+UgoZCcM/fWwTWq5BvaH9vuRU9nNCU09VXzS6L5IWwIC6IW9zasgzDcKi5ns7P8JZTlXXq61KA=
X-Received: by 2002:ac2:5f48:: with SMTP id 8mr5737765lfz.157.1595620716977; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 12:58:36 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Dick Hardt <>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2020 12:58:00 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: Justin Richer <>
Cc: Francis Pouatcha <>,, Tom Jones <>, Denis <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000823c305ab35669c"
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 19:58:42 -0000

I agree we want GNAP to be a strong foundation.

Do you have an example of other "direct data"? If so, do you expect it to
be defined in the core protocol?

I would expect an extension for other "direct data" to define top level
objects, and an appropriate definition for that "direct data".

My "do we need to worry about it now" comment was on creating a generic
term for "direct data". Unless we are solving those now, we can let further
work define that "direct data" explicitly.


On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 12:42 PM Justin Richer <> wrote:

> Yes, I do think we need to worry about it to the extent that we are not
> creating something that is over-fit to a limited set of use cases.
> GNAP should be a foundation that many amazing new things can be built on
> top of.
>  — Justin
> On Jul 24, 2020, at 3:06 PM, Dick Hardt <> wrote:
> Justin, thanks for clarifying.
> What are some examples of other "direct data" that the GS may return? If
> it is not in core GNAP, do we need to worry about now? We can then give the
> direct data from the GS that is not a claim, an appropriate name in that
> document.
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 11:46 AM Justin Richer <> wrote:
>> Dick: No, I think you’re misunderstanding what I’m saying. I agree that
>> “claims” are about the user, in this context*. But the AS could return
>> other data directly to the client that isn’t about the user. Those aren’t
>> “claims” by the classical definition. Also since “claims” can come back
>> from places other than directly, then we shouldn’t call everything that
>> comes back a “claim”.
>> I’m arguing that we keep “claims” to mean what it already means and come
>> up with a new word to mean “things that come back directly from the AS”.
>> These aren’t meant to replace Francis’s more complete definitions, but to
>> simplify:
>> Claims:
>> - information about the user
>> - can come back directly from the AS
>> - can come back in a resource from the RS
>> Resource:
>> - Returned from an RS
>> - Protected by access token
>> - Could contain claims about the user
>> Direct data (or some better name):
>> - Returned directly from AS
>> - Could contain claims about the user
>> I think the problem is that some people are using “claims” to mean #1 and
>> some to mean #3. It’s clearly #1 in OIDC. But: It’s important to remember,
>> when talking about OIDC, that an IdP in OIDC combines an AS and an RS into
>> one entity for identity information. There can be other RS’s as well, and
>> there usually are in the wild, but the one defined by OIDC is the UserInfo
>> Endpoint. The fact that it returns user data doesn’t make it any less of an
>> RS.
>>  — Justin
>> * In the wider context of things like the information claims inside a
>> JWT, the claims could be about literally anything, but that’s not what
>> we’re discussing here and it’s not how it’s being used.
>> On Jul 24, 2020, at 1:24 PM, 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