The problem with the X.1252 definition is it unnecessarily adds the “without
being able to give proof” comment. That will distract the reader immediately.
The current “a piece of information asserted about a subject” definition is
just as accurate as the X.1252 and doesn’t send readers down a
1252 s it has a section that explains the usage
A.2 Claim/assertion
The meaning of the terms claim and assertion are generally agreed to be
somewhat similar but with slightly different meanings. In some cases, an
assertion is considered to be a "stronger" statement than a claim. For exampl
Tony,
So do you agree with the following definition in -06? Or prefer X.1252
definition?
Claim A piece of information asserted about a subject. Here, Claims
are represented name/value pairs, consisting of a Claim Name and a
Claim Value.
Mike:
Regarding the ordering of the terms i
By definition a claim is always in doubt thus it would not call it a credential
until it is verified
-Original Message-
From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of David
Chadwick
Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 1:42 AM
To: Mike Jones
Cc: IETF oauth WG
Subj
I noticed the open issue quoted below while perusing the diffs of some new
I-Ds today and it reminded me that I'd been meaning to comment on that very
issue.
"Should all claims continue to be required to be understood by
implementations using them when used in a security-related contex
If a claim provides proof then I would call it a credential not a claim
David
On 29/12/2012 01:11, Mike Jones wrote:
I found the X.1252 definition. It is:
*6.18 claim *[b-OED]: To state as being the case, without being able to
give proof.
That seems both a bit vague, and actually incorrect,
