-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 66
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Directed identifiers problematic for efforts around portable identities #56
Comments
Yep, this is a great point. I'm not entirely convinced that these are entirely conflicting goals, but I agree that there is a tension. For example, one of the things that occurred to us was along the lines of establishing a convention on how to create a directed identifier. For example, if these were:
Then, independently of which IDP that provides this, that would still lead to the exact same number, making it portable, but still directed. (we ran into a wall on this scheme here because user@email.com is easily enumerable, so this is easily brute forceable) The other formulation we occurred to us was to have the browser / user agent do that joining (e.g. have IDPs give user agents a list of all of the [RP, directed identifier] pairs and have the user agent join that list from different IDPs to connect them). None of these are perfect solutions, but just wanted to be transparent about the lines of explorations. WDYT? |
Yeap agree, in general what you could say is that if you offload the responsibility of validating the subject (End-User) identifier control to the browser, then the browser could derive a directed identifier for the RP that would remain consistent even if the subject (End-User) changed IDP. I do however think that this in practise could lead to a lot of complexity that the browser must shoulder to accomplish it. |
I'll to note that a Decentralized Identifier is, at its core, just a URI scheme that returns a resolved JSON document with some form of verification material proving the ID's state is legitimate. You can model just about any type of identifier and verifiable material combo as a DID. For example Now obviously this isn't a 'true' DID in terms of its degree of decentralization, but there are other DID Methods, like |
In summary, I see nothing preventing you from modeling your 'directed IDP identifiers' as a DID URIs with a DID Document that includes whatever proofing output you generated. If you create a wholly separate scheme and convention for this, we're just going to have to manage and integrate both separately, resulting in a lot more code for the UAs to write and manage, and potentially a bifurcation of the browser API surface. Having a unified scheme for IDs is the first step, and I am extremely reluctant to support integration in Edge of one-off identifier schemes when we have a unifying convention which is now entering CR and on track for final ratification within the year. |
I don't think anyone is rejecting any formatting suggestion/convention. I
just don't think that's the hardest problem right now. I believe
mathematics (the right crypto) and economics (the right set of incentives
and feedback loops) is, so most of the conversation has been around that.
…On Sat, Mar 6, 2021, 8:56 AM Daniel Buchner ***@***.***> wrote:
In summary, I see nothing preventing you from modeling your 'directed IDP
identifiers' as a DID URIs with a DID Document that includes whatever
proofing output you generated. If you create a wholly separate scheme and
convention for this, we're just going to have to manage and integrate both
separately, resulting in a lot more code for the UAs to write and manage,
and potentially a bifurcation of the browser API surface. Having a unified
scheme for IDs is the first step, and I am extremely reluctant to support
integration in Edge of one-off identifier schemes when we have a unifying
convention which is now entering CR and on track for final ratification
within the year.
—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#56 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAFJL2TDJAUG3ZOOBX3N3BTTCJNFFANCNFSM4YUKA4OQ>
.
|
That's absolutely a more critical and difficult piece, but surely you're aware we (as Microsoft and a DID community) have been working for years to get that figured out, and now have solutions that provide the scale, features, and security required for mass deployment, right? |
I am genuinely not and would be happy to be informed. Is there something
off the shelf that solves our problem to preserve federation with more
control over tracking?
I'd be genuinely happy to hear about the math and economics aside of (a)
notation and formatting (i.e. explain to me using a basic understand of
math but nothing more) (b) solving a different problem other than the
preservation of federation.
…On Sat, Mar 6, 2021, 10:05 AM Daniel Buchner ***@***.***> wrote:
I believe mathematics (the right crypto) and economics (the right set of
incentives and feedback loops) is.
That's absolutely a more critical and difficult piece, but surely you're
aware we (as Microsoft and a DID community) have been working for years to
get that figured out, and now have solutions for which provide the scale,
features, and security required for mass deployment, right?
—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#56 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAFJL2RKXAQKL4NGI645CALTCJVH7ANCNFSM4YUKA4OQ>
.
|
@samuelgoto I think we need to see this as two separate concerns that both share a common root:
I'd argue we can do 1 and 2 now, and that we have the primitives for 3, but need to get in a room and see if we can reorient these flow to utilize them, vs piling on models that simply are not a good foundation for real digital identity. |
Currently in the federated identity landscape of today end-user identities are mostly scoped/tied to the IDP that creates and manages them. This can be a problematic relationship because end-users can become somewhat beholden to their IDP. Recently, there has been increased interest and exploration into how to establish identities that can outlive or be ported between their providers by leveraging cryptographically verifiable identifiers for end users (e.g public keys, public key fingerprints or resolvable identifiers like Decentralized Identifiers), evidence of which can be found with SIOP V2, an early stage draft on portable identities and DID SIOP. Because of this it becomes problematic for the browser to enforce directed identifiers as they would remove the ability for the RP to validate proof of control over the subject identifier via a supplied digital signature.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: