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

[Tom Jones <[e-mail]>]

yeah. - one thought
let's look at a token issued by a user - so here's a guess.
1, a claim is a statement made about themself by the user (or the RO when
that is different.)
2. a grant is an authz for the client to acquire data about (inter alia)
data about the user.
Peace ..tom


On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 5:58 AM Justin Richer <[e-mail]> 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
>