<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Aptos;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;
mso-ligatures:none;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">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
<a href="https://github.com/openid/OpenID4VP/issues/552">https://github.com/openid/OpenID4VP/issues/552</a>, -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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">I believe that we must address this issue before proceeding to review for Final status.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> Thank you,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> -- Mike<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Openid-specs-digital-credentials-protocols <openid-specs-digital-credentials-protocols-bounces@lists.openid.net>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Joseph Heenan via Openid-specs-digital-credentials-protocols<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, April 12, 2025 2:11 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Digital Credentials Protocols List <openid-specs-digital-credentials-protocols@lists.openid.net><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Joseph Heenan <joseph@authlete.com><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [Openid-specs-digital-credentials-protocols] WGLC for OpenID for Verifiable Presentations Final<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear DCP Working Group Members,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">The OpenID4VP document to be reviewed can be found here: <a href="https://openid.net/specs/openid-4-verifiable-presentations-1_0-26.html">https://openid.net/specs/openid-4-verifiable-presentations-1_0-26.html</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">1. revamp vp formats: <a href="https://github.com/openid/OpenID4VP/pull/500">https://github.com/openid/OpenID4VP/pull/500</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">2. Specifies value matching for mdocs via a reference to cbor-to-json: <a href="https://github.com/openid/OpenID4VP/pull/538">https://github.com/openid/OpenID4VP/pull/538</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">3. Remove references to ISO 18013-7 to avoid confusion due to it using OID4VP ID2: <a href="https://github.com/openid/OpenID4VP/issues/519">https://github.com/openid/OpenID4VP/issues/519</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">4. Remove anoncreds for now (hoping to add it back in 1.1) due to lack of implementation experience with DCQL etc: <a href="https://github.com/openid/OpenID4VP/pull/539">https://github.com/openid/OpenID4VP/pull/539</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">We’d also expect some editorial/non-normative changes during WGLC.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">We also discussed scheduling a meeting to talk about the sd-jwt vcld pr: <a href="https://github.com/openid/OpenID4VP/pull/459">https://github.com/openid/OpenID4VP/pull/459</a> (a separate email about this will follow shortly.)<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">The details of the specification approval process can be found here:
<a href="https://openid.net/wg/resources/approving-specifications/">https://openid.net/wg/resources/approving-specifications/</a>.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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).<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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).<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Kindest Regards,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Editors & Chairs<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>