[OAUTH-WG] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-sd-jwt-vc-06.txt

[Michael Jones <[e-mail]>]

For what it's worth, I agree with the editors that the previous text on using DIDs was not sufficient to enable interoperable implementations - which is the point of standardization.  It seemed like a practical simplification and engineering improvement facilitating more interoperability to remove the non-actionable text.

                                                My two cents worth,
                                                                -- Mike

From: Markus Sabadello <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2024 11:11 AM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-sd-jwt-vc-06.txt


Daniel,

I looked at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282, and I don't think it's appropriate to declare "rough consensus" in this case.

There have been a significant number of people who articulated many concrete arguments why it would be a bad idea to drop DID support.

The editors didn't consider or address any of those arguments, or provide meaningful counter-arguments.
Instead they dismissed substantive arguments as "general advocacy for the wonders of DIDs", they labeled DIDs as "stuff that doesn't work anyway", they declared that "there were no real objections other than DIDs are great", and called the issue "tiresome".
Many of the editors' comments on this topic were passive aggressive, provocative, dismissive.

PR 251 was created with a deceptive title, without description, and without reference to the issue where the discussion was taking place, in an obvious attempt to mislead contributors, and to avoid attention and discussion.
After merging against objections, other related issues were quickly closed as "overcome by events".

In order to not just provide a one-sided perspective, as a DID supporter, I can actually understand concerns about DIDs in SD-JWT VC being underspecified (we can help address that), and in fact I have also seen good arguments why it may indeed make sense to move DID support into a separate specification (e.g. in this comment https://github.com/openid/OpenID4VP/issues/278#issuecomment-2422455336)

But the way how this topic has been handled and dismissed is not okay.

To say "drafts can be changed any time" is a weak excuse for this behavior, and to try to find rough consensus on a mailing list AFTER a change has been made is not okay either.

To say "nothing breaks, because it's all extensible and you can define your own profile" may or may not be true, but certainly doesn't justify making arbitrary changes despite objections.

The PR should be reverted, and corresponding issues re-opened, until consensus has been achieved, in order to avoid further damage to this work.

Markus
On 11/14/24 7:00 PM, Daniel Fett wrote:

Steffen,

I am surprised and somewhat startled by the tone in your message. My message to this list was clearly intended to find the rough consensus that is missing - that's why I pointed to the two threads of discussions - and not to ignore the usual IETF processes.
Am 13.11.24 um 22:34 schrieb Steffen Schwalm:
great work! Looking at [1] and [2] there`s obviously no consensus - which implies a breach of Sections 1.2, 5 and 9.2 of the IETF Directives on Internet Standards Process.
These are strong accusations. I presume you're referring to RFC 2026<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2026>? How would Sections 5 and 9.2 apply here, even remotely?

An assumption is great but not sufficient as in any standardization body.

Again, finding this consensus is precisely what my previous message intended. Maybe this got lost in translation.
According to IETF rules the consensus shall be ensured before announcement of new version.

In my understanding and experience in this group, draft versions are just that - drafts. They can be changed at any time and this can include reverting previous changes if the working group comes to the conclusion that that is required. A new draft version can be the trigger to start a discussion to find rough consensus on a specific topic.

As far as I know, there is no part in the IETF rules that says that consensus on any change must be ensured before publication of a new draft version.
 The profiling you suggest is technically the worst solution as it leads directly to additional effort to ensure interoperability between fundamental standard and its profiles and extend complexity unnecessarily. Means the inclusion of DID in SD-JWT-VC shall be discussed with the relevant experts such as Markus Sabadello, Alen Horvat etc. Decision making based on actual consensus not assumed one.
As above - this discussion is exactly what I wanted to trigger. It needs to happen here on this list. If the outcome is that the DID references should be preserved, we'll do so.

 Formal appeal acc. Section 6.5 of IETF Directives on Internet Standards Process will follow in case the IETF directives will still be ignored.

Ok.

-Daniel

Best
Steffen

Von: Daniel Fett <mail=[e-mail]><mailto:mail=[e-mail]>
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 13. November 2024 21:03
An: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Betreff: [OAUTH-WG] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-sd-jwt-vc-06.txt


Caution: This email originated from outside of the organization. Despite an upstream security check of attachments and links by Microsoft Defender for Office, a residual risk always remains. Only open attachments and links from known and trusted senders.

Hi all,

we are happy to announce version -06 of SD-JWT VC. In this release, we're updating the media type from application/vc+sd-jwt to application/dc+sd-jwt (for background, see Brian's excellent summary at the IETF meeting last week [0]).

This version also removes references to DIDs in the specification, while leaving the door open for those who want to define a profile of SD-JWT VC using DIDs. The previously provided text on DIDs was underspecified and therefore not helpful, and a more complete specification would exceed the scope of this document while interoperability issues would remain. We think that those ecosystems wanting to use DIDs are best served by defining a profile for doing so.

We would like to point out that there are concerns about this step raised both in the respective issue [1] and in the pull request [2]. While it is our understanding from various discussions that there is a consensus for the removal of the references to DIDs in the group, this change had not been discussed here on the mailing list before. So we'd like to take this opportunity to do that now.

As a minor point, this version adds the "Status" field for the well-known URI registration per IANA early review.

-Daniel



[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvIBqlHkuXY

[1] https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-sd-jwt-vc/issues/250

[2] https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-sd-jwt-vc/pull/251
Am 13.11.24 um 21:45 schrieb [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>:

Internet-Draft draft-ietf-oauth-sd-jwt-vc-06.txt is now available. It is a

work item of the Web Authorization Protocol (OAUTH) WG of the IETF.



   Title:   SD-JWT-based Verifiable Credentials (SD-JWT VC)

   Authors: Oliver Terbu

            Daniel Fett

            Brian Campbell

   Name:    draft-ietf-oauth-sd-jwt-vc-06.txt

   Pages:   53

   Dates:   2024-11-13



Abstract:



   This specification describes data formats as well as validation and

   processing rules to express Verifiable Credentials with JSON payloads

   with and without selective disclosure based on the SD-JWT

   [I-D.ietf-oauth-selective-disclosure-jwt] format.



The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-sd-jwt-vc/



There is also an HTML version available at:

https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-oauth-sd-jwt-vc-06.html



A diff from the previous version is available at:

https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-oauth-sd-jwt-vc-06



Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at:

rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts





_______________________________________________

OAuth mailing list -- [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>



_______________________________________________

OAuth mailing list -- [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>



_______________________________________________

OAuth mailing list -- [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>