> Gareth, > > On the scope line in your reply to Yuan - that it is out of scope of > the draft why a verifier would trust claims added by the holder or > delegate holder - I think that boundary is right for a format > document, and I want to suggest that what sits outside it is two > questions rather than one. > > Your payment example separates them cleanly. The merchant trusts the > presenter is the legitimate holder because the initial issuer > provisioned into a trustworthy wallet. Key binding carries that, and > it is in scope. The added claims specifying how the card may be used > are a different matter: the holder is authoritative over them by role, > but authority over a claim and a human having approved this particular > delegation are not the same fact. A compromised or steered wallet > holding the same key produces an artifact that is valid under every > check the format defines. Nothing in the format is wrong there - the > question was never asked of it. > > So the out-of-scope region contains at least: > > who may add claims - answered by key binding, in scope > whether a human approved these specific added claims - not answered > by key binding, and not answerable at the format layer > > I raise it because the second one is where the delegation drafts, > including this one, are converging from different directions without > naming the same thing. Frederik pointed at your draft on the DTR > thread as sharing the revocation-distribution problem, which is the > same question at withdrawal time rather than issuance time: once a > delegation is issued, the party who needs to withdraw it is the human, > and the human is the party least able to host anything a verifier can > query. > > I am not proposing a change to the draft and I do not think either > question belongs in a format specification. But if the format is going > to be used for agentic delegation, a verifier will eventually need > somewhere to look for the answer, and at the moment there is no such > place in any of the drafts I have read. I have written the > requirements up without a mechanism, if it is useful as a reference > point rather than a proposal: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yossif-enrollment-problem/ > > One question, which is the reason I am writing rather than only > reading. You mention AP2 and Verifiable Intent, now with FIDO. Does > that work carry a human-approval artifact distinct from the key > binding, or is holder authority the whole of it there as well? If it > carries one, that is the closest existing answer to the second > question above and I would like to read it properly before saying > anything further about the gap. > > Mohamad Khalil-Yossif
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
