Hi Giuseppe,
The current figure in the Introduction from
draft-demarco-status-attestations-latest is:
+-----------------++-------------------+
|| Requests Status Attestation ||
||---------------------------->||
| Wallet Instance || Credential Issuer |
|| Status Attestation||
||<----------------------------||
+-----------------++-------------------+
+-- ----------------++----------+
|| Presents credential and||
|Wallet Instance| Status Attestation| Verifier |
||---------------------------->||
+-------------------++----------+
IMO, using the vocabulary agreed during the last BoF video conference,
this figure should be modified as follows:
+------------++-------------------+
|| Requests *Digital Credential* ||
|| and presents proof of knowledge of ||
|| either a private key or a link secret ||
|| and proof or origin of wallet instance | Credential Issuer |
| Holder |--------------------------------------->||
||| |
||*Digital Credential*||
||<---------------------------------------||
+------------++-------------------+
+-- ---------++-------------------+
|| Presents *Credential proof*||
| Holder|| Verifier|
||--------------------------------------->||
+------------++-------------------+
Denis
Hi Hannes,
Thank you for your quick reaction and also to Orie for sharing.
I've submitted the draft, here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-demarco-status-attestations/
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-demarco-status-attestations/>
Regarding the term Attestation: good point. We have decided to use
this term since in several IETF and OpenID drafts this term seems
pretty established, the term Attestation is found at least in the
following specifications:
- Attestation based client-authentication (it's in the title)
- OpenID4VC High Assurance Interoperability Profile with SD-JWT VC
(wallet attestation)
- OpenID for Verifiable Presentations - draft 20 (verifier attestation)
- OpenID for Verifiable Credential Issuance (section "Trust between
Wallet and Issuer": Device Attestation)
Meantime in the eIDAS Expert group this term is going to be changed to
"Wallet Trust Evidence".
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-demarco-status-attestations/>
I don't have a strong opinion on what would be the best semantic for
this, I just have realized the functional difference between a Digital
Credential and an Attestation:
the first requires the user to be authenticated and give consent for
using the secure storage. The second is obtained with a
machine2machine flow where no user interaction is required, the secure
storage is not required, no user information is contained in it since
the subject is the wallet instance and not the user, it cannot be
(re)used without the cryptographic proof of possession. Probably a
discussion could start about this term aiming to align several
specifications on the same terminology. I could say that Status
Attestation is a specific artifact defined for a specific context,
other attestations can be defined outside the functional perimeter of
this specification. Let's talk about it, it doesn't matters changing
terms (eventually mindsets on perceivable meanings).
Here I share some notes I picked along the last two months about this
brand new individual draft:
- it is related to digital credential only, I don't expect to use it
in legacy infrastructure different from wallet. I really don't need
this kind of mechanism in OIDC or any other traditional infrastructure
since these doesn't show the privacy issues the wallet ecosystem has;
- it would interesting mentioning in the introduction that's
pratically an ocsp stapling like mechanism, just to give some context
(credit: Paul Bastien);
- The Rationale section needs to clarify better problems and
solutions, where it seems that the problem does not exist or that it
is weak. A review is necessary to clearly bring the benefits;
- Editorials mistake are still along the reading.
thank you for your time and interest,
best
Il giorno mer 17 gen 2024 alle ore 21:06
<hannes.tschofenig=40gmx....@dmarc.ietf.org> ha scritto:
Hi Guiseppe, Francesco, Orie,
@Orie: Thanks for sharing the draft.
As a quick reaction: It would be good to invent a new term for
“attestation” in draft-demarco-status-attestations.html because
this term is already widely used in a different context (see RFC
9334).
@Guiseppe and Francesco: It would be great if you could submit
your draft to OAuth or SPICE for discussion.
Ciao
Hannes
*From:*OAuth <oauth-boun...@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Orie Steele
*Sent:* Mittwoch, 17. Jänner 2024 19:07
*To:* sp...@ietf.org
*Cc:* oauth <oauth@ietf.org>
*Subject:* [OAUTH-WG] OAuth Digital Credential Status Attestations
Hello Digital Credential Enthusiasts,
See:
https://peppelinux.github.io/draft-demarco-status-attestations/draft-demarco-status-attestations.html
Note the use of the term digital credential, and the alignment to
CWT based credentials and CWT based credential status lists.
As a quick summary of the editors draft above:
It is basically a refresh-token-like approach to dynamic state,
where the holder retrieves updated state from the issuer at
regular intervals, and can then present that dynamic state
directly to the verifier.
This eliminates the herd privacy and phone home issues
associated with W3C Bitstring Status Lists.
And it informs the holder of dynamic state, so the digital wallet
can provide a better user experience.
However, an issuer (government or ngo) could use the interval of
requesting dynamic state, to track the holder... so the guidance
from
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-steele-spice-oblivious-credential-state/
Is also relevant to this draft.
I also learned that
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-sd-jwt-vc/
Has defined a new property for expressing "Verifiable Credential"
"type" `vct`, which is different from how W3C defines credential
types.
W3C uses the expanded IRI for the graph node type, based on the
JSON-LD context.
For example with:
{
"@context": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/credentials/v2";,
"https://www.w3.org/ns/credentials/examples/v2";
],
"id": "http://university.example/credentials/1872";,
"type": ["VerifiableCredential", "ExampleAlumniCredential"],
...
}
The credential type in RDF becomes
"https://www.w3.org/ns/credentials/examples#ExampleAlumniCredential";
Which is different from "ExampleAlumniCredential" in JSON... More
evidence that RDF leads to developer confusion regarding safe typing.
The OAuth solution does not have this confusing issue, they set
the type explicitly:
{
"vct": "https://credentials.example.com/identity_credential";,
"given_name": "John",
"family_name": "Doe",
"email": "john...@example.com",
"phone_number": "+1-202-555-0101",
"address": {
"street_address": "123 Main St",
"locality": "Anytown",
"region": "Anystate",
"country": "US"
},
"birthdate": "1940-01-01",
"is_over_18": true,
"is_over_21": true,
"is_over_65": true,
"status": {
"status_attestation": {
"credential_hash_alg": "S256",
}
}
}
Regards,
OS
--
*ORIE STEELE
*Chief Technology Officer
www.transmute.industries <http://www.transmute.industries>
<https://transmute.industries/>
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
