[Openid-dcp] Request for technical proposals ahead of joint meeting between ISO WG 10/DCP members

[Nakamura Kenichi (中村 健一)]

Hello Kristina,

Yes, SD-JWT VC is not mandated in HAIP. However when I commented in DCP WG that I prefer Google proposal on HPKE, but it was opposed due to applicability to SD-JWT VC. It seems HAIP is not independent to credential format.

Best regards,
Kenken

差出人: Kristina Yasuda <yasudakristina at gmail.com>
日付: 火曜日, 2025年12月23日 23:59
宛先: Digital Credentials Protocols List <openid-specs-digital-credentials-protocols at lists.openid.net>
CC: Nakamura Kenichi (中村 健一) <nakamura.kenken at jp.panasonic.com>
件名: Re: [Openid-dcp] Request for technical proposals ahead of joint meeting between ISO WG 10/DCP members

Hi Kenichi,

> Current problem of OID4VP is that HAIP (1.0) is not desirable for ecosystems who do not use SD-JWT VC. OID4VP is a building block and may have profiles, the same as WG10 considers OpenID4VCI would have profiles and HAIP is one of them. I do not have an objection that DCP WG develops a profile for EU, but WG10 should specify a profile applicable for any mdocs.

HAIP does not mandate SD-JWT VC and allows implementers to use it only with mdocs. could you elaborate why you believe HAIP does not work with "any mdocs"?

Thank you,
Kristina


On Tue, Dec 23, 2025 at 2:40 PM Joseph Heenan via Openid-specs-digital-credentials-protocols <openid-specs-digital-credentials-protocols at lists.openid.net<mailto:openid-specs-digital-credentials-protocols at lists.openid.net>> wrote:
(Resending, as it didn’t make it at least to the mailing list archive for some reason)

Hi all

Please see a proposal below as submitted by Kenichi.

Thanks

Joseph

-------------------------

For proximity use case, ISO/IEC 18013-5 device engagement already has capability info.

DeviceEngagement =
{
0: Version,
1: Security,
? 2: DeviceRetrievalMethods,
? 5: OriginInfos,
? 6: Capabilities,
* uint => RFU,
* nint => Ext
}

If wallet will indicate support of SD-JWT, protocol to retrieve SD-JWT VC can be used after session establishment. WG10 does not specify SD-JWT VC, so I don’t have strong opinion how to map request and response on the top of ISO/IEC 18013-5 session and DCP WG should do it because they are also considering support of SD-JWT VC. If DCP WG does not have expertise on it, WG10 can help it.

For online use case, there is no way for wallet to inform its capability to relying party. But http get method already support  query which can be used to inform whether requester wishes to receive mdoc request or sd-jwt vc request.

Current problem of OID4VP is that HAIP (1.0) is not desirable for ecosystems who do not use SD-JWT VC. OID4VP is a building block and may have profiles, the same as WG10 considers OpenID4VCI would have profiles and HAIP is one of them. I do not have an objection that DCP WG develops a profile for EU, but WG10 should specify a profile applicable for any mdocs.

So I am not sure “harmonized protocol” is required or not and both parties should consider co-existence of two protocols.

————————————


On 18 Dec 2025, at 18:42, Joseph Heenan <joseph at authlete.com<mailto:joseph at authlete.com>> wrote:

Hi all

As was agreed in the first joint meeting, at the next meeting (on the 23rd December 13:00 – 14:00 UTC, the invite was sent to this mailing list earlier today) the group wanted to get into discussion about the form of the technical solution at the high level.

After discussion between the ISO convenor & the DCP co-chairs we believe the best way to proceed would be if people could submit outlines of how they envisage the harmonised protocol looking. These outlines should be short, either concise text or a diagram, definitely under 1 page.

The expectation would be that these high level proposals select various parts of the existing ISO 18013 / OID4VC protocols and combine them in a way that produces a "best of breed" solution.

We’d encourage people that believe they might submit similar proposals to work together wherever possible to keep the number of proposals received to a minimum and hence use the meeting time in the most effective way.

Please submit proposals ASAP (and prior to the 23rd Dec meeting) as a response to this message (with Loffie CCed so they can be distributed to ISO members too). We suggest we then quickly review the proposals at the meeting, and the group selects the least disliked proposal as a starting point that we then have detailed discussions about.

Many thanks

Joseph


--
Openid-specs-digital-credentials-protocols mailing list
Openid-specs-digital-credentials-protocols at lists.openid.net<mailto: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/20251224/c5ef9736/attachment-0001.htm>