<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="overflow-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;"><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><div style="overflow-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;"><div>Dear DCP Working Group Members,</div><div> </div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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. </div><div> </div><div>The OpenID4VP document to be reviewed can be found here: <a href="https://openid.net/specs/openid-4-verifiable-presentations-1_0-27.html">https://openid.net/specs/openid-4-verifiable-presentations-1_0-27.html</a></div><div><br></div><div>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!):</div><div><br></div><div>Rename authorization_encrypted_response_enc parameter <a href="https://github.com/openid/OpenID4VP/pulls">https://github.com/openid/OpenID4VP/pulls</a> </div><div><br></div><div>The above should resolve the point Mike Jones raised during WGLC.</div><div><br></div><div>There’s an ongoing attempt to understand Tom Jones’s issue raised during WGLC.</div><div><br></div><div>There’s also a few non-breaking improvements in PRs that may be merged before public review.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>The details of the specification approval process can be found here: https://openid.net/wg/resources/approving-specifications/.</div><div><br></div><div>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).</div><div>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).</div><div><br></div><div>Kindest Regards,</div><div>Editors & Chairs</div><div><br></div></div></body></html>