[OIDFSC] Digital Credentials Harmonized Presentation Working Group Charter - Approval Request

Wed May 27 16:46:12 UTC 2026

Specs Council

We are in the 15 day voting period by the Specs Council, starting May 24th ending on or before June 8th.

With the clarification exchange with Bjorn and Dima in mind:

  *
Ignore vice chair term
  *
Copy change from “OIDF and ISO” to “OIDF or ISO” to accurately reflect the joint WG intent, can you please cast your vote
  *
OIDF process document applies which allows for up to 5 cochairs, however the new WG may restrain itself to fewer cochairs in order to secure balance between the two WGs forming this new WG. Balance is a top priority for the participants. Right now we suspect it may end up being 3 cochairs that will deliver balance but there are currently 6 candidates likely to take part in a poll which participants in informal joint WG will operate to help expedite and facilitate consensus going into the first new WG meeting.

Please kindly cast your vote on the Charter:

  *
Yes
  *
No (and reason in line with Process document)
  *
[No vote yet - Clarification]

The Specs council has the full 15 days, but if the specs council is able to agree more quickly that would be much appreciated. If the specs council can make a swift decision it will help joint WG participants to complete their internal reviews so that the June 12th meeting can go ahead.

Note: Any material change to the Charter from the Specs council will need to go back to the joint WG for review, which may in turn lead to further changes and a second round of Specs Council review.

From: Bjorn Hjelm <bjorn.hjelm at oidf.org>
Date: Wednesday, May 27, 2026 at 2:08 AM
To: Dima Postnikov <dima at postnikov.net>
Cc: Bjorn Hjelm <blhjelm at gmail.com>, jheenan_authletefwd <joseph at authlete.com>, openid-specs-council at lists.openid.net <openid-specs-council at lists.openid.net>, Gail Hodges <gail at oidf.org>, Mike Leszcz <mike.leszcz at oidf.org>
Subject: Re: [OIDFSC] Digital Credentials Harmonized Presentation Working Group Charter - Approval Request

Hi Dima,
My mistake. Yes, the intent is either SDO so the text should probably be changed to "either OIDF or ISO".

Yes, you can ignore the reference to "Vice-Chair".

Kind Regards,
Bjorn

________________________________
From: Dima Postnikov <dima at postnikov.net>
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2026 1:50 AM
To: Bjorn Hjelm <bjorn.hjelm at oidf.org>
Cc: Bjorn Hjelm <blhjelm at gmail.com>; jheenan_authletefwd <joseph at authlete.com>; openid-specs-council at lists.openid.net <openid-specs-council at lists.openid.net>; Gail Hodges <gail at oidf.org>; Mike Leszcz <mike.leszcz at oidf.org>
Subject: Re: [OIDFSC] Digital Credentials Harmonized Presentation Working Group Charter - Approval Request

Thanks Bjorn

So, we can probably ignore "Vice Chair" in the OIDF context.

> (whether Chair or Vice Chairs) must be representative of OIDF and ISO,
I want to confirm whether each chair candidate is only eligible if they already serve as a representative of both ISO and OIDF.  Or we can have one of each to satisfy this requirement.

On Wed, May 27, 2026 at 10:37 AM Bjorn Hjelm <bjorn.hjelm at oidf.org<mailto:bjorn.hjelm at oidf.org>> wrote:
Hi Dima,
Thanks for your feedback.

The working procedure was initially written without a specific SDO in mind to document the intended working relationship between the participant from the different SDOs. The reason for referencing OIDF and ISO was to highlight the joint nature of this effort and main stakeholders participating regardless of what SDO was chosen where the work would be performed.

For the new OIDF WG, the OIDF Process document applies. The short answer to your question is that a "Chair" needs to meet the requirements of a Contributor. I'm not clear what the "other way" means in this context.

The number of OIDF WG co-chairs normally varies between 2-4 for a variety of reason (WG scope and knowledge need, WG work load, time zones, individual aspirations, etc.) so I don't believe there's a valid argument that it should only be 2 chairs. Again, the working procedure was written without a specific SDO in mind and the intent of the sentence referenced was to ensure that each stakeholder had (at least) a representive in a leadership role to foster trust between the main stakeholders when starting this work.

I don't recal if any OIDF WG has Vice-Chair as oppose to Co-Chairs. This varies with other SDOs of course.

Finally, the working procedure could probably be further refined to only apply to OIDF but, in the essence of time, the choice was to minimize the WG approval time to allow the technical work to formally start.

Kind Regards,
Bjorn

________________________________
From: Dima Postnikov <dima at postnikov.net<mailto:dima at postnikov.net>>
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 10:59 PM
To: Bjorn Hjelm <blhjelm at gmail.com<mailto:blhjelm at gmail.com>>
Cc: jheenan_authletefwd <joseph at authlete.com<mailto:joseph at authlete.com>>; openid-specs-council at lists.openid.net<mailto:openid-specs-council at lists.openid.net> <openid-specs-council at lists.openid.net<mailto:openid-specs-council at lists.openid.net>>; Gail Hodges <gail at oidf.org<mailto:gail at oidf.org>>; Mike Leszcz <mike.leszcz at oidf.org<mailto:mike.leszcz at oidf.org>>; Bjorn Hjelm <bjorn.hjelm at oidf.org<mailto:bjorn.hjelm at oidf.org>>
Subject: Re: [OIDFSC] Digital Credentials Harmonized Presentation Working Group Charter - Approval Request

Thanks, Bjorn and Joseph.

The review process seems to be quite rigid, but it's a good starting point.

Can I clarify a couple of things here:

> Chair(s) selection process (SDO specific). The functional leaders of the group
(whether Chair or Vice Chairs) must be representative of OIDF and ISO,
Does it prevent ISO members who are not currently OIDF WG participants from becoming co-chairs? And the other way?

> for example if there is no consensus from both groups on the chairs and vice chairs,
ISO members could choose to elect one chair/vice chair whilst OIDF members
also elect one chair/vice chair.
Not sure if we need more than 2 co-chairs, but should it be 50%?

Also, do we have a concept of "WG vice chair" in OIDF?

On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 9:52 AM Bjorn Hjelm via specs-council <openid-specs-council at lists.openid.net<mailto:openid-specs-council at lists.openid.net>> wrote:
Please highlight any proposed changes to help with the comment resolution.

Kind Regards,
Bjorn

On May 26, 2026, at 9:36 AM, Joseph Heenan <joseph at authlete.com<mailto:joseph at authlete.com>> wrote:

Hi all

Just for completeness for the archives, here’s the google doc attached in word format.

Positive responses would be appreciated if possible please!

Many thanks

Joseph

<Digital Credentials Harmonized Presentation Working Group Charter.docx>

On 24 May 2026, at 14:04, Bjorn Hjelm <blhjelm at gmail.com<mailto:blhjelm at gmail.com>> wrote:

This is a request for formal approval of the charter (and working procedures) for a new working group, Digital Credentials Harmonized Presentation Working Group, to support the joint initiative by ISO/IEC JTC1/SC 17 (ISO) WG10 and OpenID Foundation (OIDF) DCP WG to harmonize their respective credential exchange protocol for in-person and online.

The proposed charter can be found at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DPVuhBaAaMGH7gzJoZWZLKRC8EwsuhILQA7lYy8zqg8/edit?tab=t.0.

--
Kind Regards,
Bjorn
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-council/attachments/20260527/df8b8911/attachment-0001.htm>