[Openid-specs-digital-credentials-protocols] WGLC for OpenID for Verifiable Presentations Final

[Michael Jones]

I believe that draft 26 is not ready to proceed to Foundation-wide review because of an inconsistency introduced between -25 and -26 in how response encryption algorithms are specified.  As described in https://github.com/openid/OpenID4VP/issues/552, -26 uses a parameter defined by another spec, but uses it in a way that is incompatible with it.  Two possible solutions are proposed in the issue.

I believe that we must address this issue before proceeding to review for Final status.

                                                                Thank you,
                                                                -- Mike

From: Openid-specs-digital-credentials-protocols <openid-specs-digital-credentials-protocols-bounces at lists.openid.net> On Behalf Of Joseph Heenan via Openid-specs-digital-credentials-protocols
Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2025 2:11 PM
To: Digital Credentials Protocols List <openid-specs-digital-credentials-protocols at lists.openid.net>
Cc: Joseph Heenan <joseph at authlete.com>
Subject: [Openid-specs-digital-credentials-protocols] WGLC for OpenID for Verifiable Presentations Final

Dear DCP Working Group Members,

As discussed on the Friday working group call we would like to get WG consensus that the OpenID4VP draft is ready to start the final specification approval process.

Please respond to this email within the next 7 days, by end of Sunday 20th April, whether you believe the draft should proceed to the public review or not.

The OpenID4VP document to be reviewed can be found here:  https://openid.net/specs/openid-4-verifiable-presentations-1_0-26.html

There are a couple of normative changes that we discussed during the working group meeting on Friday to work on during working group last call:

1. revamp vp formats: https://github.com/openid/OpenID4VP/pull/500

2. Specifies value matching for mdocs via a reference to cbor-to-json: https://github.com/openid/OpenID4VP/pull/538

3. Remove references to ISO 18013-7 to avoid confusion due to it using OID4VP ID2:  https://github.com/openid/OpenID4VP/issues/519

4. Remove anoncreds for now (hoping to add it back in 1.1) due to lack of implementation experience with DCQL etc: https://github.com/openid/OpenID4VP/pull/539

We'd also expect some editorial/non-normative changes during WGLC.

We also discussed scheduling a meeting to talk about the sd-jwt vcld pr: https://github.com/openid/OpenID4VP/pull/459 (a separate email about this will follow shortly.)

If there are other topics working group members think need to be handled before the specification moves to final please reply to this email with details.

This is very much just a step on the journey, and it is likely that comments will arrive during the 60 day review period that the working group chooses to fix before the voting period starts.

The details of the specification approval process can be found here: https://openid.net/wg/resources/approving-specifications/.

This email is about the first bullet point on this list "Obtain working group consensus to propose foundation-wide approval of the draft specification", which is often called Working Group Last Call (WGLC).
The following steps are to start a 60-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).

Kindest Regards,
Editors & Chairs

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-digital-credentials-protocols/attachments/20250416/dc04e177/attachment-0001.htm>