Hi Denis,

OAuth defines 4 roles, see Section 1.1 of RFC 6749. In the three party model 
there is likely a human behind the holder as well.

You can map the OAuth terms to the VC terms, if you like, as follows:

* Issuer: Authorization Server
* Holder: Client
* Verifier: Relying Party

TEEs, Trusted Applications, etc. are implementation specific details. You can 
use them in OAuth, and other protocols as well.

Regarding the question: "What the IETF should do (or not do) in this area ?"
The answer is: We are working in the IETF on these topics already, see Web 
Authorization Protocol (oauth) 
(ietf.org)<https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/oauth/documents/>.

Regading the question: "The protocols between an holder and a verifier are 
rather different from those defined din OAuth, since in many cases they support 
Zero-Knowledge proofs (ZKPs).
The answer is: No,not necessarily. That's what the whole SD-JWT is about.

Ciao
Hannes


Von: OAuth <oauth-boun...@ietf.org> Im Auftrag von Denis
Gesendet: Samstag, 9. September 2023 15:44
An: Roman Danyliw <r...@cert.org>
Cc: oauth <oauth@ietf.org>
Betreff: Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth and JWT/VC documents

Historically, the OAuth WG has been using a model including five components: 
the user, the Client, the AS, the RO and the RS.

The model applicable in the context of the "three part model (issuer, holder, 
verifier)" is rather different since there is no AS, nor RO.
An AS should not be confused with an Issuer. An Issuer has no relationship with 
a verifier.

In the "three part model", a Credential is issued by an Issuer to an holder who 
may then derive himself from it one or more Verifiable Presentations
without any call-back to the Issuer. The holder may then present to a RS one or 
more Verifiable Presentations derived from Credentials issued
by the same or different Issuers. It is implicit that the "three part model" 
shall support selective disclosure of the holder's attributes.

The "three part model (issuer, holder, verifier)" involves more entities / 
components: the user, the TEE (Trusted Execution Environment)
supported by the smart phone or tablet manufacturer, Trusted Applications (TAs) 
placed into the TEE, the providers of these Trusted Applications (TAs)
and the RichOS supported by the smart phone or tablet. Security and privacy 
concerns can only be achieved while considering the whole chain.


The protocols between an holder and a verifier are rather different from those 
defined din OAuth, since in many cases they support Zero-Knowledge proofs 
(ZKPs).


Before designing an architecture, it is important to raise the following 
questions:


  *   Is it desirable to support linkability between verifiers and/or 
unlinkability between verifiers ?
  *   How to bind a Verifiable Presentation to its legitimate holder while also 
supporting the unlinkability property between verifiers ?

IMO, bridging the architectural narrative used in the core OAuth framework (AS, 
RS, RO) and three part model (issuer, holder, verifier) is not desirable.
This would add confusion. Extending the OAuth charter to address the "three 
part model" is not desirable.

Some committees and foundations are already addressing this topic, e.g., W3C, 
OpenID, DIF (Decentralized Identity Foundation) and GlobalPlatform (for the 
TEE).

The key question is: what the IETF should do (or not do) in this area ?

A BoF should be opened to continue this discussion.

Denis

Thanks for kicking off the conversation!

Inline:
On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 2:08 PM Roman Danyliw 
<r...@cert.org<mailto:r...@cert.org>> wrote:
Hi!

We've observed growing energy around JWT, selective disclosure and VC related 
topics in the WG in recent meetings.  We spent almost all of the third OAuth 
meeting at IETF 117 on related topics.  The initial SD-JWT 
(draft-ietf-oauth-selective-disclosure-jwt) has been followed up with SD-JWT-VC 
(draft-ietf-oauth-sd-jwt-vc).  There is also work like 
draft-looker-oauth-jwt-cwt-status-list being proposed.

As promised at IETF 117, we would like to start a conversation about the 
direction the WG would like to take at a strategic level rather than continuing 
to deal this topic in one document increments of additional scope.

** What's the body of work around SD/JWT/VC that should be done and how much 
work will that be?  What needs to be done first?  What unknown about the 
direction and needed tasks?

There are building blocks that "look like VC" but are actually vanilla JWT / 
relevant outside the 3 party model. I would recommend keeping them at OAuth 
(status list cwt is an example of this IMO).

It's possible that a document at OAuth recognizing the data model elements of 
the 3 party model (iss, sub, cnf, kid, etc) might help enable documents outside 
of OAuth to better defer to OAuth for "moving tokens, or leveraging successful 
protocols"... this could help reduce the data model reinvention everywhere 
else, and it could drive the common understanding of registered claim names to 
be interpreted consistently across JWT / CWT (and their SD friends).

** For whatever that work might be, how should the OAuth charter evolve to 
support the work?

I don't know, but I am happy to help : )

One thing that seems worth unpacking is why DCP at OIDF is leaving the OIDC 
part behind (paraphrasing, kristina probably has a better take): 
https://openid.net/wg/digital-credentials-protocols/

Are there things DCP might need from OAuth WG, how might the charter align to 
that work?

** Is there work to be done around bridging the architectural narrative used in 
the core OAuth framework/RFC6749 (AS, RS, RO) and three part model (issuer, 
holder, verifier) used in draft-ietf-oauth-selective-disclosure-jwt?

I think so? but it depends on the comment above.

Personally I would like to see the OAuth WG tackle this head on, especially 
because of the wallet / client / subject / holder confusion.... Starting with 
the people we are here to serve seems like a safe way to progress through the 
technical sugar (which I love).

OS


Thanks,
Roman, Hannes, and Rifaat
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org<mailto:OAuth@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth


--



ORIE STEELE Chief Technology Officer 
www.transmute.industries<http://www.transmute.industries/>

[cid:image002.png@01D9E585.81B6EB40]<https://transmute.industries/>



_______________________________________________

OAuth mailing list

OAuth@ietf.org<mailto:OAuth@ietf.org>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth


_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

Reply via email to