[Openid-specs-digital-credentials-protocols] [External Sender] Minutes from 16th May 2024 DCP WG call

[George Fletcher]

Is there a link or document encapsulating Daniel's updated proposal? I
didn't see that in the notes.

Thanks,
George

On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 12:34 PM Joseph Heenan via
Openid-specs-digital-credentials-protocols <
openid-specs-digital-credentials-protocols at lists.openid.net> wrote:

>
> Participants:
>
> Joseph Heenan
> Kristina Yasuda
> Daniel Fett
> Andreea Prian
> Arjen van Veen
> Bjorn Hjelm
> Brian Campbell
> gabe
> Jan Vereecken
> Jin Wen
> Juba Saadi
> Michael Jones
> Oliver Terbu
> Pedro Felix
> Rajvardhan Deshmukh
> Ryan Galluzzo
> Sebastian Birckerle
> Sebastian Bahloul
> Sudesh Shetty
> Lukasz Jaromin
>
>
> *Events:*
>
> There will be a hybrid meeting with in-person participation for those at
> Identiverse; if you would like to attend in person please register on
> eventbrite:
>
>
> https://www.eventbrite.com/e/openid-foundation-dcp-wg-hybrid-meeting-at-identiverse-tickets-902324616217
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.eventbrite.com/e/openid-foundation-dcp-wg-hybrid-meeting-at-identiverse-tickets-902324616217__;!!FrPt2g6CO4Wadw!PzNG-ENdz6LPSilZ35wVr5Aa8PCyte9BwQ8H04gV2xCYIXil3wt3xiLLVAdx5IjkzAE0lJQyo0Hh8cYmZFyVeneG8b9V-IWd5LqBKm3M$>
>
> It was proposed to cancel the normal working group meetings during
> Identiverse & EIC and no one objected.
>
>
>
> *VP Query Language Proposal:*
>
> Daniel shared the latest thoughts on the query language, presenting an
> evolution of the proposal created during IIW that meets the various
> requirements that were agreed by the working group, that includes some
> feedback from implementers that looked at the previous proposal:
> https://hackmd.io/1siVhjzOTWOE9ppdF_t57A?view
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://hackmd.io/1siVhjzOTWOE9ppdF_t57A?view__;!!FrPt2g6CO4Wadw!PzNG-ENdz6LPSilZ35wVr5Aa8PCyte9BwQ8H04gV2xCYIXil3wt3xiLLVAdx5IjkzAE0lJQyo0Hh8cYmZFyVeneG8b9V-IWd5NyyZhRl$>
>
> There was some discussion over the how the logic of “and/or” requests is
> expressed; Daniel said the current proposal is the simplest they could come
> up with.
>
> Two people asked about how to return multiple credentials fulfilling the
> same single requirement; that hadn’t come up before and we probably need a
> way to express if the verifier wants all the matches or just one - new
> issue to be opened for that.
>
> Jan asked where both ‘format’ and the name of the format specific
> parameters object (e.g. “vc+sd-jwt”) are required. Daniel said that
> ‘format' is necessary so there is a clear place for the verifier to figure
> out if it supports the requested format, and then there’s also a desire to
> collect the format specific keys into a sub-object.
>
> Jan asked about implementations. There aren’t any yet that we’re aware of.
>
> Kristina asked if we wanted to proceed with a new query language format
> and if this proposal was a good way to proceed.
>
> Jan, Arjen, Brian, Michael J, Oliver, Gabe agreed it was a useful starting
> point. No one raised objections to using it as a starting point. Oliver
> wasn’t sure about the advances syntax features in example 7.
>
> Next step is to open an issue.
>
>
> *VP Transaction Data:*
>
> Kristina has opened 4 new issues for 4 specific points that need
> discussion, all tagged with the ’transaction data’ label.
>
> Issue 173: The verifier needs an easy way to check the wallet is approve
> what it’s requested; given the difficulties of comparing json objects
> having the transaction request base64url encoded in the request & response
> seems like the best solution right now.
>
>
> *VP PRs:*
>
> #175 Add text/diagram for siopv2 conditional cred req flow
> https://github.com/openid/OpenID4VP/pull/175
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/openid/OpenID4VP/pull/175__;!!FrPt2g6CO4Wadw!PzNG-ENdz6LPSilZ35wVr5Aa8PCyte9BwQ8H04gV2xCYIXil3wt3xiLLVAdx5IjkzAE0lJQyo0Hh8cYmZFyVeneG8b9V-IWd5DH311B6$> to
> solve https://github.com/openid/OpenID4VP/issues/86
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/openid/OpenID4VP/issues/86__;!!FrPt2g6CO4Wadw!PzNG-ENdz6LPSilZ35wVr5Aa8PCyte9BwQ8H04gV2xCYIXil3wt3xiLLVAdx5IjkzAE0lJQyo0Hh8cYmZFyVeneG8b9V-IWd5DSJrIIH$>
>
> Please read and give feedback.
>
>
> *VCI PRs/issues:*
>
> https://github.com/openid/OpenID4VCI/pull/314
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/openid/OpenID4VCI/pull/314__;!!FrPt2g6CO4Wadw!PzNG-ENdz6LPSilZ35wVr5Aa8PCyte9BwQ8H04gV2xCYIXil3wt3xiLLVAdx5IjkzAE0lJQyo0Hh8cYmZFyVeneG8b9V-IWd5AV7pv8c$>
>
>
> Removed authorization_pending as discussed in previous meetings and
> notified to mailing list. No objections raised.
>
>
> https://github.com/openid/OpenID4VCI/pull/319
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/openid/OpenID4VCI/pull/319__;!!FrPt2g6CO4Wadw!PzNG-ENdz6LPSilZ35wVr5Aa8PCyte9BwQ8H04gV2xCYIXil3wt3xiLLVAdx5IjkzAE0lJQyo0Hh8cYmZFyVeneG8b9V-IWd5G3_91S7$>
>
>
> As per previous working group discussions, clarify how encryption works on
> batch endpoint - please review.
>
>
>
> https://github.com/openid/OpenID4VCI/pull/321
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/openid/OpenID4VCI/pull/321__;!!FrPt2g6CO4Wadw!PzNG-ENdz6LPSilZ35wVr5Aa8PCyte9BwQ8H04gV2xCYIXil3wt3xiLLVAdx5IjkzAE0lJQyo0Hh8cYmZFyVeneG8b9V-IWd5DhSwgjk$> -
> adds a new error code to credential endpoint for the issuer to indicate
> it’s denying the request - please review.
>
>
>
> https://github.com/openid/OpenID4VP/issues/171
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/openid/OpenID4VP/issues/171__;!!FrPt2g6CO4Wadw!PzNG-ENdz6LPSilZ35wVr5Aa8PCyte9BwQ8H04gV2xCYIXil3wt3xiLLVAdx5IjkzAE0lJQyo0Hh8cYmZFyVeneG8b9V-IWd5M7MYAQT$> -
> “nonce” handling should be more explicit.
>
>
> Kristina pointed out that SD-JWT & W3C LDP sections do contain wording;
> Oliver will review it and raise a PR if it can be improved.
>
>
>
>
> https://github.com/openid/OpenID4VP/issues/124
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/openid/OpenID4VP/issues/124__;!!FrPt2g6CO4Wadw!PzNG-ENdz6LPSilZ35wVr5Aa8PCyte9BwQ8H04gV2xCYIXil3wt3xiLLVAdx5IjkzAE0lJQyo0Hh8cYmZFyVeneG8b9V-IWd5B1q2ZX0$> -
> client_id_scheme security considerations
>
>
> We need to come to a decision on this. The feeling when discussed at OSW
> seemed to be folding the client_id_scheme into the client_id in some way so
> the existing iss/aud fields in JWTs can be used etc. To be discussed on
> next week’s WG calls.
>
>
>
> --
> Openid-specs-digital-credentials-protocols mailing list
> Openid-specs-digital-credentials-protocols at lists.openid.net
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-digital-credentials-protocols__;!!FrPt2g6CO4Wadw!PzNG-ENdz6LPSilZ35wVr5Aa8PCyte9BwQ8H04gV2xCYIXil3wt3xiLLVAdx5IjkzAE0lJQyo0Hh8cYmZFyVeneG8b9V-IWd5N-ulCCW$
>

______________________________________________________________________



The information contained in this e-mail may be confidential and/or proprietary to Capital One and/or its affiliates and may only be used solely in performance of work or services for Capital One. The information transmitted herewith is intended only for use by the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from your computer.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-digital-credentials-protocols/attachments/20240516/5ead42c8/attachment.html>