Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Fix editorial issues with Level of Assurance section. #752

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 30, 2021
Merged

Fix editorial issues with Level of Assurance section. #752

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
59 changes: 34 additions & 25 deletions index.html
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -4711,38 +4711,47 @@ <h2>Persistence</h2>
<h2>Level of Assurance</h2>

<p>
Additional information about the security context of authentication events
is often required for compliance reasons, especially in regulated areas
such as the financial and public sectors. Examples include but are not
limited to protection of secret keys, the identity proofing process, and the
form-factor of the authenticator. For example, <a target="_blank"
Additional information about the security context of authentication events is
often required for compliance reasons, especially in regulated areas such as the
financial and public sectors. This information is often referred to as a Level
of Assurance (LOA). Examples include the protection of secret cryptographic
material, the identity proofing process, and the form-factor of the
authenticator.
</p>

<p>
<a target="_blank"
href="https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/payment-services-psd-2-directive-eu-2015-2366_en">
Payment services (PSD 2)</a> and <a target="_blank"
href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2014.257.01.0073.01.ENG">
eIDAS</a> introduce such requirements to the security context. Level of
Assurance (LoA) frameworks are classified and defined by, for example,
<a target="_blank"
assurance frameworks are classified and defined by regulations and
standards such as <a
target="_blank"
href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2014.257.01.0073.01.ENG">
eIDAS</a>,
<a target="_blank" href="https://pages.nist.gov/800-63-3/sp800-63-3.html">
NIST 800-63-3</a> and <a target="_blank" href="https://www.iso.org/standard/45138.html">
ISO/IEC 29115:2013</a>, including their requirements for the security
context, and making recommendations on how to achieve them. This might
include strong user authentication and <a target="_blank"
eIDAS</a>, <a target="_blank"
href="https://pages.nist.gov/800-63-3/sp800-63-3.html"> NIST 800-63-3</a> and <a
target="_blank" href="https://www.iso.org/standard/45138.html"> ISO/IEC
29115:2013</a>, including their requirements for the security context, and
making recommendations on how to achieve them. This might include strong user
authentication where <a target="_blank"
href="https://fidoalliance.org/fido2">FIDO2</a>/<a target="_blank"
href="https://www.w3.org/TR/webauthn-2/">WebAuthn</a> can be potential
implementations. A LoA represents the level of confidence that an entity is in
fact that entity. Some regulated use cases require the implementation of a
certain LoA. Since <a>verification relationships</a> such as <code>
href="https://www.w3.org/TR/webauthn-2/">WebAuthn</a> can fulfill the
requirement.
</p>

<p>
Some regulated scenarios require the implementation of a specific level of
assurance. Since <a>verification relationships</a> such as <code>
<a>assertionMethod</a></code> and <code><a>authentication</a></code> might be
used in some of these use cases, information about the applied security context
might need to be expressed and provided to a <em>verifier</em>.
Whether and how to encode this information in the <a>DID document</a> data model
is out of scope for this specification, but it should be noted that the <a>DID
document</a> data model can be extended if necessary (see <a
href="#extensibility">Extensibility</a> section). Section <a
href="#privacy-considerations">Privacy Considerations</a> remains applicable for
such extensions.
used in some of these situations, information about the applied security context
might need to be expressed and provided to a <em>verifier</em>. Whether and how
to encode this information in the <a>DID document</a> data model is out of scope
for this specification. Interested readers might note that 1) the information
could be transmitted using Verifiable Credentials [[?VC-DATA-MODEL]], and 2) the
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Doesn't seem to me that the VC data model reference be informative here

Suggested change
could be transmitted using Verifiable Credentials [[?VC-DATA-MODEL]], and 2) the
could be transmitted using Verifiable Credentials [[VC-DATA-MODEL]], and 2) the

Copy link
Member Author

@msporny msporny May 30, 2021 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The DID specification currently has no normative dependency on the Verifiable Credentials specification (and this could create one -- which could be argued as a normative change to the specification). ReSpec will also throw a warning if we make a normative reference in an informative section, which this is.

For those reasons, I'm rejecting the change request.

<a>DID document</a> data model can be extended to incorporate this information
as described in <a href="#extensibility"></a>, and where <a
href="#privacy-considerations"></a> is applicable for such extensions.
</p>
</section>
</section>
Expand Down