[Openid-specs-ab] Spec Call Notes 12-Aug-24

[Joseph Heenan]

Hi all

A couple of comments:

> [Openid-specs-ab] Call for Working Group Adoption of OpenID Federation Wallet Architectures 1.0
>                 There's been some discussion of the contribution and whether it should be adopted as-is
>                 Joseph thought that some metadata values currently defined there should be in other specs
>                                 In the long term, everyone responding to him agreed with him
>                                 There was disagreement on whether adoption should wait for these values to be first defined elsewhere

There is no need at all to hold up adoption of this spec - the metadata items that are outside of the scope of this specification and hence belong in other specs should simply be removed and (if not already) submitted to the correct working group so that the important work of getting a profile of Federation for wallets can proceed. This could happen very quickly.

>                 These were written down now to enable interoperable implementations of wallet ecosystems using Federation to be developed
>                 Mike asked Nat to be ready to make the adoption decision as chair next week
>                                 Since John and Mike are authors

It is important to clarify that this is a decision for the working group to make, not the chairs, as per https://openid.net/wordpress-content/uploads/2017/06/OIDF-Policy-Process-Document-Final-6-19-2017.pdf - it is clear to me that adoption currently cannot proceed as there are unresolved comments and the ’substantial support’ bar for consensus has not been reached, nor has a formal vote been started. I suggest we instead attempt to reach consensus on the 22nd call, unless we manage to reach consensus sooner via email.

>                 Giuseppe sent a detailed message describing each of the defined metadata parameters and their purpose

Unfortunately I’m travelling this week / at a conference so haven’t had a chance to properly digest the responses yet, but I hope to do so within the next week. However my objection is not to the purpose of the parameters, but to them not being Federation specific nor needed to make federation work for wallets, and hence must not be in a document with the current title when there are much more appropriate documents for them to be in. The fact that at least one of the proposed parameters also doesn’t actually work is a separate issue.

Thanks

Joseph

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20240813/8b23e19b/attachment-0002.html>