[Openid-specs-digital-credentials-protocols] WGLC for HAIP First Implementers Draft

[Kristina Yasuda]

Hi Steffen,

As Joseph beautifully explained in the original email, this is not the
final version of the specification. We want to use Implementer's Draft
process to "receive feedback from a wider group of people to ensure the
spec is the best it can be by the time it goes to final".

Also, two things you mention in your email "W3CVCDM v1.1 and ETSI TS 119
472-1" were not in the requirements list that OIDF DCP WG received from the
European Commission. Also, they have not come up in DCP WG previously. If
you can open issues, we can definitely discuss and get WG agreement on how
to proceed on those items but we can do that during or after the
Implementers draft process, and this should not be a reason to slow down
starting the implementers draft process itself.

Best,
Kristina

On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 12:28 PM steffen schwalm via
Openid-specs-digital-credentials-protocols <
openid-specs-digital-credentials-protocols at lists.openid.net> wrote:

> I do not agree as the HAIP does not reflect the Implementing Acts and
> standardization in Europe related to eIDAS (Art .5a which includes
> W3CVCDM v1.1 and ETSI TS 119 472-1 relevant for trust services under eiDAS).
>
> As HAIP is so only limited useful is shall be updated accordingly
>
> Best
> Steffen
>
> On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 10:24 AM Giuseppe De Marco via
> Openid-specs-digital-credentials-protocols <
> openid-specs-digital-credentials-protocols at lists.openid.net> wrote:
>
>> I support moving HAIP to Implementer’s Draft
>>
>> best,
>> G
>>
>> Il giorno mer 5 feb 2025 alle ore 00:08 Joseph Heenan via
>> Openid-specs-digital-credentials-protocols <
>> openid-specs-digital-credentials-protocols at lists.openid.net> ha scritto:
>>
>>> Dear Working Group,
>>>
>>>
>>> As discussed on the Thursday working group call last week (and also on
>>> today’s working group call) we would like to get WG consensus that the
>>> current HAIP draft is ready to start the Implementer’s draft approval
>>> process.
>>> Please respond to this email *within the next 2 days, by Thur Feb 6th
>>> end of business hours in PST*, whether you believe the current draft
>>> should proceed to the public review or not. (Apologies that we didn’t
>>> manage to get this email out after the Thursday call as originally
>>> discussed!)
>>>
>>> The HAIP document to be reviewed can be found here:
>>> https://openid.github.io/oid4vc-haip/openid4vc-high-assurance-interoperability-profile-wg-draft.html
>>>
>>> The primary reason for starting the (somewhat lengthy) implementer’s
>>> draft process at this point is that doing so now is the only way to publish
>>> an implementer’s draft and still hit the timeline to publish a final
>>> version of the spec by the end of June, which we want to do in order to hit
>>> the timelines promised to the EU, ISO, etc.
>>>
>>> We certainly don’t view this spec as final - this is very much just a
>>> step on the journey, and there may well be comments that arrive during the
>>> 45 day public review period that the working group chooses to fix before
>>> the voting period starts. There are also a number of open issues in the
>>> GitHub issue tracker that the working group wants to solve before we take
>>> HAIP to final (you can see the list currently tagged for 1.0 Final here:
>>> https://github.com/openid/oid4vc-haip/milestone/2 - please let the
>>> chairs know if you think anything is missing from that list).
>>>
>>> I feel having the public review period and receiving that feedback from
>>> a wider group of people is very important to ensuring the spec is the best
>>> it can be by the time it goes to final.
>>>
>>> The details of the Implementer’s draft approval process can be found
>>> here: https://openid.net/wg/resources/approving-specifications/.
>>> This email is about the first bullet point on this list, which is
>>> sometimes called Working Group Last Call (WGLC).
>>> The next steps are to start a 45-day Foundation-wide review, followed by
>>> the 7 day voting period (the poll itself will open 7 days before the end of
>>> the Foundation-wide review ends). If all goes smoothly the official 7 day
>>> voting period will hopefully start on Mon 24th March.
>>>
>>> Kindest Regards,
>>> Editors & Chairs
>>>
>>> Note that, a 7 days WGLC review period would have meant that a 45 days
>>> review would start on 24th of December, which overlaps with the Holidays.
>>> Therefore, also taking into account that it has been discussed a number of
>>> times and agreed in the WG that the WG would like to start the WGLC of
>>> OpenID4VCI once two specific PRs are merged, the DCP WG made a decision on
>>> Dec 17th WG call to do WGLC in 2 days
>>> --
>>> Openid-specs-digital-credentials-protocols mailing list
>>> Openid-specs-digital-credentials-protocols at lists.openid.net
>>>
>>> https://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-digital-credentials-protocols
>>>
>> --
>> Openid-specs-digital-credentials-protocols mailing list
>> Openid-specs-digital-credentials-protocols at lists.openid.net
>>
>> https://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-digital-credentials-protocols
>>
> --
> Openid-specs-digital-credentials-protocols mailing list
> Openid-specs-digital-credentials-protocols at lists.openid.net
>
> https://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-digital-credentials-protocols
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-digital-credentials-protocols/attachments/20250206/00ce3631/attachment.htm>