[Openid-specs-digital-credentials-protocols] Second WGLC for OID4VP

[steffen schwalm]

Fully agree to Tom.

Tom Jones via Openid-specs-digital-credentials-protocols <
openid-specs-digital-credentials-protocols at lists.openid.net> schrieb am
Mi., 23. Apr. 2025, 18:21:

> Here is a Dark Pattern of Verifier requests that was actually seen in the
> California mDL trials run lately.
>
> The Verifier will get permission (or whatever it might be called) to ask
> for a collection of purposes, for example a convenience store could be
> selling chewing gum, hard liquor and sim cards for smartphones.  This is
> what the ecosystem allows it to ask for, along with payments. So if I buy a
> stick of chewing gum and decide to pay with my EUDIW, it is within the
> approved permissions for this store to ask intrusive questions that apply
> to purchasing liquor or sim cards, which are very intrusive in some
> countries.
>
> Peace ..tom jones
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 3:53 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 today’s (yesterday now for some of you!) working group
>> call (and as per my email) we would like to start a get WG consensus that
>> the current OpenID4VP draft is ready to start the final specification
>> approval process.
>>
>> Please respond to this email within the next 2 days, by end of Thursday
>> 22nd April, whether you believe the current 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_0-27.html
>>
>> There is one normative PRs that we agreed during the working group
>> meeting to work on during working group last call (just waiting for final
>> reviews please!):
>>
>> Rename authorization_encrypted_response_enc parameter
>> https://github.com/openid/OpenID4VP/pulls
>>
>> The above should resolve the point Mike Jones raised during WGLC.
>>
>> There’s an ongoing attempt to understand Tom Jones’s issue raised during
>> WGLC.
>>
>> There’s also a few non-breaking improvements in PRs that may be merged
>> before public review.
>>
>> 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/20250423/576c5ab0/attachment.htm>