Wiki
Clone wikiconnect / Connect_Meeting_Notes_2021-03-15_Pacific
OpenID AB/Connect WG Meeting Notes (2021-03-11)
- Date & Time: 2020-12-17 15:00 UTC
- Location: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/181372694
Agenda
The meeting was called to order at 15:__ UTC.
1. Roll Call
- Attending: David Waite (Ping Identity), Adam Lemmon, Nat Sakimura, John Bradley (OIDF/Yubico), Jeremie Miller (Ping), Tim Cappalli (Microsoft), Kristina Yasuda, Edmund Jay, Vittorio Bertocci, Tom Jones
- Regrets: Mike Jones
- Guest:
2. Adoption of Agenda (Nat)
Agenda was created on-the-fly.
3. Updates on Claims Aggregation Draft (Adam/Edmund)
Adam et al are still working on the input document[1] which is going to be used to raise issues against the claims aggregation draft.
Tom asked if the scope of the Claims Aggregation draft will be changed according to [1]. He was concerned as [1] does not deal with the requests made by RPs.
Nat responded that the scope will not be changed from the approved work item. The draft [1] is used as an input to create issues against the current draft. If the WG reaches consensus, the PRs associated with these issues will be applied to the Claims Aggregation draft.
[1] https://github.com/mattrglobal/oidc-client-bound-assertions-spec
4. PRs (Nat)
4.1. PR12: Clarifying decentralized concept (Kristina)
The PR is based on the previous discussion in the WG calls and not tied into tickets.
It is trying to add more context and explanation to the current document.
It needs more reviewers. Vittorio agreed to review it by the next call.
5. Issues (Nat)
We talked about the following issues.
#1209, #1202, #1189, #1182, #1213, #1199.
#1209 was discussed at length.
5.1. 1209: For migration, should support multiple subjects at once in portable identifiers cases (David)
- Issue
#1209
David explained the issue of migration when an existing OP introduced portable identifiers.
John pointed out that it is about the subject confirmation method rather than sub itself.
Tom expressed that migration is a valid issue to discuss but he is uncomfortable in having multiple subs in a token as in a single connection, there is only one subject in OIDC.
John pointed out that the notion of confirmation method and subject identifier should be disentangled.
Vittorio expressed that he is not comfortable in just talking on a purely theoretical basis but we should have canonical use-cases.
Nat changed the status of this ticket to "open" and encouraged people to continue the discussion.
Updated