<div dir="ltr">I do <b>not </b>support adoption of this draft for the reasons that have been listed by Pieter, Aaron, Justin, Brian, Andrii and Ralph.<div><br></div><div>Key bound ID Tokens using OIDC is where Microsoft and few other companies have started when implementing Verifiable Credentials and OpenID for Verifiable Credential Issuance 1.0 is where all that implementation experience has led. I don't think there is a need to reinvent a wheel when there already is a well-tested final (!) protocol that can be used for this use case. </div><div><br></div><div>It is also concerning that this call for adoption happened without the topic being mentioned in the DCP WG even once. I am sure DCP WG members would be happy to help and point out extension points in VCI 1.0 that can be leveraged, if needed.</div><div><br></div><div>Best,</div><div>Kristina</div><div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 12:57 AM Michael Jones via Openid-specs-ab <<a href="mailto:openid-specs-ab@lists.openid.net" target="_blank">openid-specs-ab@lists.openid.net</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>
<div lang="EN-US">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">This starts a two-week call for feedback on whether to adopt the OpenID Connect OpenID Connect Key Binding specification contributed to the working group by Dick Hardt and Ethan Heilman as an OpenID Connect
Working Group specification. Please reply-all by Monday, September 29, 2025 saying whether you are favor of adoption or not, also saying why.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">The specification was contributed at
<a href="https://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/2025-August/010890.html" target="_blank">
https://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/2025-August/010890.html</a>. It has been extensively discussed by the working group both on calls and on the mailing list. From my observations of the discussion as a working group chair, I believe that there
is consensus that it would be useful to have a standard solving the problem addressed by this specification.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> Writing as a working group chair,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> -- Mike<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Openid-specs-ab mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Openid-specs-ab@lists.openid.net" target="_blank">Openid-specs-ab@lists.openid.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab</a><br>
</div></blockquote></div>