- From: Alan Karp <alanhkarp@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2021 10:05:44 -0700
- To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Cc: W3C Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CANpA1Z0dAAPz5c_gLfgv=tvHsPE1gfKFf6d2RffNwfXhAsT8wA@mail.gmail.com>
I won't be able to attend, but I think the second to last could be SHOULD, or even MAY, instead of MUST. That way client credentials can be used within a trust domain and bearer tokens between them. -------------- Alan Karp On Sat, Jul 10, 2021 at 8:13 AM Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote: > VC HTTP API Work Item - July 13th 2021 > Time: Tue 4pm ET, 1pm PT, 10pm CET, 8am NZDT (Wed) > > Text Chat: > http://irc.w3.org/?channels=ccg > irc://irc.w3.org:6665/#ccg > > Jitsi Teleconf: > https://meet.w3c-ccg.org/vchttpapi > > Duration: 60 minutes > > MEETING MODERATOR: Manu Sporny > > AGENDA: > > 1. Agenda Review, Introductions, Use Cases Update (10 min) > > 2. Pull Requests (5 minutes) > https://github.com/w3c-ccg/vc-http-api/pull/211 > > 3. Issue Processing (5 minutes) > https://github.com/w3c-ccg/vc-http-api/issues/204 > > 4. Authorization Proposals (40 minutes) > > These are synthesized proposals based on Justin's reformulation of MikeV's > proposals, the +1s on the mailing list, work that has volunteers, and ideas > that seem like they might at least get majority support given input from > the > mailing list. > > PROPOSAL: How a VC HTTP API client gets an authorization token is out of > scope. > > PROPOSAL: How a VC HTTP API server validates an authorization token is out > of > scope. > > PROPOSAL: One of the authorization mechanisms for the VC-HTTP-API MUST be > OAuth 2 Bearer tokens. > > PROPOSAL: One of the authorization mechanisms for the VC-HTTP-API SHOULD be > GNAP key-bound access tokens. > > PROPOSAL: One of the authorization protocols for the VC-HTTP-API MUST be > OAuth > 2 Client Credentials. NOTE: This one conflicts with the first proposal (on > purpose). > > PROPOSAL: The VC HTTP API MUST define access actions in terms of OAuth 2 > RAR > structures. > > In the interest of making some preliminary decisions and moving on, we > will be > doing majority voting for all proposals that fail to achieve consensus. > Remember that all of this is at risk to being re-litigated when the work > flows > into an official working group, so decisions are to be viewed as > preliminary > (and not final). > > -- manu > > -- > Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/ > Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. > News: Digital Bazaar Announces New Case Studies (2021) > https://www.digitalbazaar.com/ > >
Received on Saturday, 10 July 2021 17:06:15 UTC