Best practice - SAML – OIDC attributes/claims mapping
Started with informal group. REFEDS mailing list archive: https://lists.refeds.org/sympa/arc/oidcre
RFC working doc: https://github.com/refeds-oidcre/eduperson-jwt-claims
Planning/mapping spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YirGURSkivafVSZCykDuqQjKGKlUu4uHHNHTNB-n_Ic/edit
A few people (Niels van Dijk, Jim Basney, ..) discussed this already and presented this at Tiime December 2015.
Notes from the previous Tiime session: https://rhoerbe.github.io/wwwTiimeworkshopEu/identityworkshop.eu/past-events/ewti-2015/proceedings/18-december-2nd/102-session-18-mapping-eduperson-to-oidc-claims.html
We have a distributed federation in the SAML world whereas OIDC does not, although some work is going on.
Very pragmatic thing where we come up with a best-practice-recommendation in SAML. In the end it is always an implementation-choice if you do mapping.
Markus is displaying documents from the OIDCre wiki:
Straight mapping from A to B
At the mapping "I want to make sure that it goes both ways".
We are talking about page 24 in https://aarc-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/MJRA1.3-Design-for-the-integration-of-an-Attribute-Management-Tool.pdf
It shows a mapping of eduperson to oidc attributes. Remark: sub is not scoped, but local. To be unambiguous you need to write iss+sub.
We should define something so that anybody can participate to work on this.
Two mapping strategies in use at the same time: map some of the basic information (should work with a basic client out-of-the-box). Next: additional profile to provide mapping to claims that have the complete set of eduPerson attributes
Extensions for clients for advanced scenarios.
Next we see a table. All that is yellow is problematic.
Potential issues (Column "Remark"):
Roland can no longer chair the REFEDS OIDCre WG, Niels Van Dijk volunteers to pick it up.
Maarten is proposing to forward this as a strawman proposal to Nicole, and ask her to start a consultation in REFEDS. Registration can happen afterwards. Chances to have this recognized by the OCID group are low. The proposal should be limited to the R+S attribute.
It would be nice if Nils sends a message to Nicole at the end of the session.
First we will solve the simple mapping scenario:
How to deal with the identifier? Red parts at the table (gender birth date…). we should be able to come up with a safe list.
Niels' proposal for order of handling things:
Double-checking of what is the 'simple mapping' list:
-Identifier (proposal in comment from Tom Scavo on the OIDCre wiki https://wiki.refeds.org/display/GROUPS/Transforming+Identifiers+between+OIDC+and+SAML?focusedCommentId=13107203#comment-13107203)
The problematic attributes:
We already have a global community to give feedback.
Everyone who wants can join the REFEDS OICDre (https://wiki.refeds.org/display/GROUPS/OIDCre) working group.
Leif suggested to start a claims registry at IANA for having easy unambiguous handles to any OIDC/SAML/etc attribute. Actually there could be an IETF FO-working group for a couple topics, which would provide the resources for this.
There should be an IETF-workstream. We need to write a RFC.
Niels will be writing a proposal about what attributes to use.
Niels will present the conclusions in the summary session.