Drop claims short cut

[Torsten Lodderstedt]

the spec currently allows to use short cuts for defining the claims to be attested in the verified_claims structure

“Note: A claims sub-element with value null is interpreted as a request for all possible Claims. An example is shown in the following …”

Feedback indicates this leads to ambiguity and does not foster privacy preserving behaviour of RPs

I suggest to drop the short cut.

[Takahiko Kawasaki]

Do you mean that the mechanism to request all possible claims should be removed?

[Torsten Lodderstedt]

yes. I think the RP should be explicit about the claims it wants to obtain.

[Takahiko Kawasaki]

Then, still, behaviors for the cases of "claims":null and ”claims”:{} need to be described explicitly. Please keep my feedback made during the public review period ( Issue 1110 ) in mind this time. (I’ve already implemented special parsing for the current rules, though.)

[Torsten Lodderstedt]

if "claims":null is no longer valid, what do you expect the spec to define?

[Achim Schlosser]

I would support the removal, stumbled across this while reading the spec (Privacy by Design). This is not possible in the core spec either, why should it be supported here.

[Torsten Lodderstedt]

merged PR