[Openid-dcp] [Openid-specs-fapi] EU Payment Wallet Standard(s) - Proposed W3C Community Group

Wed Jun 10 14:32:18 UTC 2026

Hi all,

thanks for the clarification and for the useful discussion. I fully agree that alignment is important, especially given the ongoing work in the EUDI Large Scale Pilots, CEN TC 224, ETSI, and the OIDF Digital Credentials WG. Avoiding duplicated or conflicting work should clearly be one of the main goals.

At the same time, I am not fully convinced that the OIDF Digital Credentials Protocols WG would be the right home for the payment wallet work as currently described. My understanding is that DCP is primarily focused on digital credential protocols, credential issuance, presentation, and related interoperability questions. Payment wallet architectures, payment initiation, account-based payment flows, e-receipts, and the relationship to banking/payment APIs seem to go beyond that scope.

From that perspective, a dedicated forum may indeed make sense, provided that its scope is clearly defined and that it actively liaises with the existing EUDI, ETSI, CEN, and OIDF work rather than creating parallel standards. So my suggestion would be to first clarify the exact scope of the proposed work: which parts are about digital credential interaction and may require alignment with DCP, and which parts are genuinely payment-specific and may be better handled elsewhere.

Best regards,
- 
Mirko Mollik 

Identity Architect (EUDI-Wallet-Projekt) mirko.mollik at eudi.sprind.org

SPRIND GmbH 

BUNDESAGENTUR FÜR SPRUNGINNOVATIONEN   
FEDERAL AGENCY FOR DISRUPTIVE INNOVATION  
Lagerhofstraße 4, 04103 Leipzig   

www.sprind.org    

Geschäftsführung: Berit Dannenberg, Rafael Laguna de la Vera  
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Dr.-Ing. E. h. Peter Leibinger  
Amtsgericht Leipzig – HRB 36977  
USt-ID DE328253854 
Disclaimer

> Am 10.06.2026 um 12:58 schrieb steffen schwalm via Openid-specs-digital-credentials-protocols <openid-specs-digital-credentials-protocols at lists.openid.net>:
> 
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> fully understood but standardization of EUDI Wallet done in CEN Tc 224 (hardware, crypto, onboarding etc.), ETSI and OIDF Digital Credentials WG as well. So IMHO also reason for alignment before doing double work in W3C.
> 
> Best
> Steffen
> 
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2026 at 10:35 AM andrew melchior <andrew at genotone.com <mailto:andrew at genotone.com>> wrote:
>> Hi Steffen,
>> 
>> Fair point, and thank you for the correction. I used “trust layer” loosely where ETSI has it well covered.
>> What I meant is the gap between an open specification and an open implementation. Both can conform to the same standards while the deployed wallet remains proprietary, which is the situation Anders described. That implementation gap, rather than any new trust services work, seems to me the legitimate scope for the group.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> Andrew
>> 
>> On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 at 10:29, steffen schwalm <schwalm.steffen at googlemail.com <mailto:schwalm.steffen at googlemail.com>> wrote:
>>> Hi Andrew, 
>>> 
>>> the trust layer is standardized in ETSI,  no need for redundancy. 
>>> 
>>> Best 
>>> Steffen 
>>> 
>>> andrew melchior <andrew at genotone.com <mailto:andrew at genotone.com>> schrieb am Mi., 10. Juni 2026, 10:21:
>>>> Hi Anders, hi Steffen,
>>>> 
>>>> I support the creation of this group and will join, initially as an observer.
>>>> 
>>>> I also agree with Steffen on alignment. The EUDI Large Scale Pilots and the OIDF Digital Credentials WG are already covering adjacent ground, and the fastest way to lose momentum on infrastructure like this is to fragment it across SDOs. A community group that explicitly maps and liaises with that existing work, rather than duplicating it, would be the most useful version of this.
>>>> 
>>>> The underlying problem Anders identifies is real and broader than payments. We see the same pattern in content provenance the platform is open, but the layer where value and trust actually live remains proprietary, and the gap gets captured by a single vendor. Closing that gap with open, vendor-neutral specifications is exactly what community groups are for.
>>>> 
>>>> Count me in.
>>>> 
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Andrew Melchior
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 at 10:14, steffen schwalm 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:
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>> 
>>>>> thanks a lot for your initiative Anders. Since Large Scale Pilots on EUDI already work on the subject I strongly recommend alignment with them (since you Anders are as far as I know mit participate there). Since it's possibly related to Digital Credentials WG in OIDF also alignment there seems meaningful (possibly this might be better place for the standardization than W3C (
>>>>> 
>>>>> As there's work already ongoing in different SDO we should avoid double work and explore this first. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thx & Best
>>>>> Steffen 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Anders Rundgren via Openid-specs-fapi <openid-specs-fapi at lists.openid.net <mailto:openid-specs-fapi at lists.openid.net>> schrieb am Mi., 10. Juni 2026, 05:54:
>>>>>> As you may know, there are no open standards for payments wallets.
>>>>>> Example: Android is Open Source, but the Google wallet is not.  To cope with this I have proposed a W3C community group:
>>>>>> https://www.w3.org/community/blog/2026/06/09/proposed-group-payment-support-for-the-eu-digital-identity-wallet-community-group/
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The idea is collecting different aspects of payment wallets, possibly even including standardization of certain parts.  To not start from square one I have provided a few "candidate" solutions where the "push-through" wallet concept probably is the most fundamental
>>>>>> https://github.com/eu-digital-identity-wallet/eudi-doc-architecture-and-reference-framework/issues/388
>>>>>> since it closes the current gap between online and local payments as well as between different account-based systems.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Anyway, regardless if you only intend to be a "lurker" or a contributor, I would be very happy if you supported the creation of this group!
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanx,
>>>>>> Anders Rundgren
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Decomposition of bank APIs: https://github.com/cyberphone/open-banking-2.0#open-banking-20
>>>>>> e-Receipts <https://github.com/cyberphone/open-banking-2.0#open-banking-20e-Receipts>: https://cyberphone.github.io/doc/defensive-publications/signed-e-receipts.pdf
>>>>>> Removing intermediaries: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/andersrundgren_the-a2awallet-architecture-is-a-deal-done-activity-7463964458965422080--OJY
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Openid-specs-fapi mailing list
>>>>>> Openid-specs-fapi at lists.openid.net <mailto:Openid-specs-fapi at lists.openid.net>
>>>>>> https://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-fapi
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> 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
> -- 
> 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/20260610/0fed986d/attachment.htm>