Add privacy considerations #509
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Restructured the privacy consideration section according to ISO/IEC 29100 privacy principles and added a bunch of text. Added ISO/IEC 29100 in the reference.
Sakurann
requested review from
awoie,
babisRoutis,
bc-pi,
c2bo,
danielfett,
hlozi,
martijnharing,
paulbastian,
scvenema,
tlodderstedt and
tplooker
Sakurann
changed the title
Collaborator
|
WG discussion:
|
Sakurann
reviewed
Apr 16, 2025
leecam
reviewed
May 13, 2025
Sakurann
reviewed
May 19, 2025
Sakurann
reviewed
May 19, 2025
Sakurann
reviewed
May 19, 2025
Sakurann
reviewed
May 19, 2025
tplooker
reviewed
Jun 8, 2025
paulbastian
reviewed
Jun 8, 2025
Comment on lines
1983
to
1989
| ### Establishing Trust in the Request URI {#request_uri_and_trust_relationships} | ||
|
|
||
| Requests from the Wallet to the Verifier SHOULD be sent with the minimal amount of information possible, and in particular, without any HTTP headers identifying the software used for the request (e.g., HTTP libraries or their versions). The Wallet MUST NOT send PII or any other data that could be used for fingerprinting to the Request URI in order to prevent End-User tracking. | ||
| Wallets operating within a trust framework SHOULD validate that the Request URI is properly associated with the Client Identifier and authorized for the request. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Authorization Error Response with the `wallet_unavailable` error code | ||
| Untrusted or unrecognized Request URI endpoints SHOULD be rejected or require End-User confirmation before proceeding. | ||
|
|
||
| In the event that another component is invoked instead of the Wallet, the End-User MUST be informed and give consent before the invoked component returns the `wallet_unavailable` Authorization Error Response to the Verifier. | ||
| ### Authorization Requests with Request URI {#authorization_requests_with_request_uri} |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Are these two sections not talking about the same request_uri??
Also does this mean, a Wallet outside a trust framework should require user confirmation before fetching it?
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Does the same apply to response_uri endpoint?
Co-authored-by: Paul Bastian <paul.bastian@posteo.de>
Co-authored-by: Paul Bastian <paul.bastian@posteo.de> Co-authored-by: Tobias Looker <tplooker@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Tobias Looker <tplooker@gmail.com>
selfissued
reviewed
Jun 9, 2025
selfissued
reviewed
Jun 9, 2025
selfissued
reviewed
Jun 9, 2025
selfissued
reviewed
Jun 9, 2025
selfissued
reviewed
Jun 9, 2025
selfissued
approved these changes
Jun 9, 2025
Member
selfissued
left a comment
selfissued
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Approved with change suggestions.
tplooker
approved these changes
Jun 10, 2025
Contributor
tplooker
left a comment
tplooker
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Approved on the basis that the suggestions I made are incorporated.
paulbastian
approved these changes
Jun 10, 2025
danielfett
approved these changes
Jun 10, 2025
Contributor
danielfett
left a comment
danielfett
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The various suggested changes should be applied, but generally looks good to me!
awoie
reviewed
Jun 10, 2025
awoie
approved these changes
Jun 10, 2025
Contributor
awoie
left a comment
awoie
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
approving but supporting all comments that were made
Co-authored-by: Paul Bastian <paul.bastian@posteo.de> Co-authored-by: Michael B. Jones <michael_b_jones@hotmail.com> Co-authored-by: Tobias Looker <tplooker@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Daniel Fett <mail@danielfett.de> Co-authored-by: Joseph Heenan <joseph@authlete.com> Co-authored-by: Oliver Terbu <o.terbu@gmail.com>
Sakurann
reviewed
Jun 10, 2025
jogu
reviewed
Jun 10, 2025
Sakurann
reviewed
Jun 10, 2025
Co-authored-by: Joseph Heenan <joseph@authlete.com>
Sakurann
reviewed
Jun 10, 2025
Sakurann
reviewed
Jun 10, 2025
Sakurann
reviewed
Jun 10, 2025
Sakurann
reviewed
Jun 10, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Restructured the privacy consideration section according to ISO/IEC 29100 privacy principles and added a bunch of text.
Added ISO/IEC 29100 in the reference.
resolves #24
resolves #594
[June 8th] @Sakurann took over editing the PR - please review from https://github.com/openid/OpenID4VP/pull/509/files#diff-3118c9756a1d7b361bb53af8bd9d65666476a27cfeeced56c47a5dccc38eac55R1903 (Kristina apologizes for some editorial nits to this PR....)