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

Wed Apr 23 08:26:59 UTC 2025

Joseph:

As OIDF according to its own statements aims to define specifications in
support of EUDI Wallet your statement "  given many things are out of scope
for OID4VP and defined by local ecosystem requirements/laws" is highly
dangerous. If OID4VP aims for EUDI any risk of legal breach as Tom assumes
shall be avoided.

means: if you believe that "OID4VP can also be used in a way that is
compliant with such laws" --> exactly this way shall be defined as the only
possible one to be in compliance with GDPR, eIDAS etc. Would be typical
approach we know from ETSI, CEN, ISO.

Currently looking at the mails I support Tom in his doubts.

Beside this I oppose against to bring OID4VP in current version in next
step: DCQL only requires to write query per credential format which is
weird - in comparison to presentation exchange. Recommend to open the door
for presentation exchange as optional possibility.

Best
Steffen

On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 12:39 AM Joseph Heenan via
Openid-specs-digital-credentials-protocols <
openid-specs-digital-credentials-protocols at lists.openid.net> wrote:

> Hi Tom
>
> To repeat what I added to on the issue a few days ago,
> https://github.com/openid/OpenID4VP/issues/333#issuecomment-2816774542 :
>
> I've read back through this issue. There seem to be a number of questions
> I've asked Tom that I've not obviously got answers to, such as "To try and
> clarify: you agree that user consent is happening, your doubt is to whether
> the consent is sufficiently informed?". Being unable to narrow down exactly
> what Tom believes the problem is or isn't is significantly hampering
> figuring out if there's a problem that needs to be solve in the
> specification or not.
>
>
> I think we've replied to every point Tom has raised, with the possible
> exception of not fully replying to this one:
>
>
> Digital identity wallets must ascertain the identity of Verifiers and
> determine whether these Verifiers possess the necessary authorisation or
> obligation to request Verifiable Credentials (VCs) or claims.
>
> I don't see how OID4VP provides that - all i see is a URL that the user
> must decide whether to trust.
>
>
> I already explained that OID4VP provides for this via
> https://openid.github.io/OpenID4VP/openid-4-verifiable-presentations-wg-draft.html#name-client-identifier-prefix-an (for
> example, x509_san_dns defined there does not require the user to declare
> whether they trust a URL or not, it can be PKI certs that assert a trusted
> name for the verifier etc) but it's perhaps also worth sharing that the
> "possess the necessary authorisation or obligation to request Verifiable
> Credentials (VCs) or claims." part is being solved in an EU specific way,
> there was a presentation about this at the recent IIW:
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1s-MM27j4ZxACf0ecuVBGbuj8o4C5kr9g62jXeby0wso/edit#slide=id.g34994030800_0_349
>
>
> My understanding of the current situation:
>
>
>
>    1. Tom believes that OID4VP can be used in ways that are not compliant
>    with laws such as EU GDPR / EUDI wallet regulations (a point that I believe
>    there is agreement on, given many things are out of scope for OID4VP and
>    defined by local ecosystem requirements/laws)
>    2. Tom doesn't like the way verifier authentication was done at the
>    California hackathon.
>    3. Everyone (except for Tom?) seems to believes OID4VP can also be
>    used in a way that is compliant with such laws
>
>
> Is this a correct summary?
>
> (Mirko also added a comment with more detail on how this would work in
>
> Thanks
>
> Joseph
>
>
> On 18 Apr 2025, at 11:35, Tom Jones <thomasclinganjones at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> i do not believe the spec is ready.
> see https://github.com/openid/OpenID4VP/issues/333
>
> Peace ..tom jones
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 12, 2025 at 2:12 PM Joseph Heenan via
> Openid-specs-digital-credentials-protocols <
> openid-specs-digital-credentials-protocols at lists.openid.net> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>> --
>> 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/20250423/98558010/attachment.htm>