Hey Tony, On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 1:36 PM <nada...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> 1) Do you support the charter text? Or do you have objections or blocking > concerns (please describe what they might be and how you would propose > addressing the concern)? > > Not sure I support at this point, I understand the need for an > architecture document with patterns and definitions, etc. > > There is a lot of work going on outside the IETF in this area such as the > mDL work in ISO that already has patterns and definitions along with > credential formats (mdoc) and transports (ble/http/nfc). I don’t believe > the IETF should ignore these efforts since most of the driving licence and > passport communities/companies are adopting this as one of the standards > that issuers and verifiers will use. The same is true for W3C WebAuthn. > WebAuthN cannot produce standard digital signatures, and so it cannot be used to produce standard digital credentials (for example it cannot be used to produce JWT or SD-JWT). It could produce authentications for public keys that could be bound to credentials, but because of the origin binding in WebAuthN, this would not fit well with the "audience" typically used for digital credentials (usually there is no audience) You might find this thread on possible relation between mDoc and CWT interesting: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spice/xiRpmd-Bexv94qentlGg1Snjw1A/ > The architecture, patterns and definitions should be free from technology, > I don't know why W3C is mentioned in the introduction as the only > technology, this should not be in the introduction but along with other > technologies such as mDL/mdoc, webauthn, etc when describing profiles. As > the goal would be for interested parties to produce profiles of other > technologies to fit the architecture document with patterns and definitions. > W3C is mentioned because some W3C members asked for a term other than "Verifiable Credentials" to be used... and they asserted the "Verifiable Credentials" implies the JSON-LD data model developed in W3C. ISO was not emphasized because formal coordination would require contribution from ISO experts, and we have had relatively low engagement from them. > > I believe that the WG if formed should also think about holder > verification and patterns and attestations that can be used. Interesting. I think this is covered under the metadata discovery deliverable, but if you feel it could be made more clear, please send text. > Also there needs to be a notion of a "reader/wallet/etc" that can > potentially store credentials (not necessarily the user or verifier) and > release/store credentials upon "user" consent. This sounds like an application to me. How do you see this related to "credential formats" or "issuer/holder/verifier metadata"? > > > There are other models than the 3 party that VCs use, so these also need > to be considered in the architecture, patterns and definitions documents > to enable profiles for other technologies. Agreed, OAuth JWTs/SD-JWTs, and ISO mDocs are examples we have discussed. Are there others you would like to see considered? > > I believe in the 1st 3 items in Goals but I don't believe it would be in > the best interest to define a metatdata protocol, as this sounds like this > would be a protocol for obtaining DID documents, there are already many > protocols out there for metadata retrieval, not sure there is a need for > another one, if one is needed for DIDs then that may be better done in W3C > as this does not seem to fit well with the charter > Discovering attestations for wallets seems to fit here, why should URLs or URNs (DIDs) be specifically marked as out of scope? For consideration, JWK / COSE Key Thumbprints are good alternatives to DIDs which have been standardized / are being standardized in the IETF: - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cose-key-thumbprint/ > > This charter seems to be very scoped to W3C technology, I understand that > interested parties will have to contribute if they want to have other > technologies included but the charter in general does not seem to allow > this, so removing specific technology will allow this to happen. We chose to use "Digital Credential" and "Digital Presentation" specifically to keep the door open to CWT and COSE Sign1 structures which are used in IETF and ISO. > > > I would be happy to give provide specific text changes to the charter. > I think it would be great if you could offer text that refines your comment about format support, and holder/wallet metadata / attestations. > > > 2) If you do support the charter text: > > > 3) Are you willing to author or participate in the developed of the WG > drafts? > > yes > > • Are you willing to review the WG drafts? > > yes > > • Are you interested in implementing the WG drafts? > > I'm willing to see how we can use these outputs with the other industry > technologies. > > Thank you for your comments. > > > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > OAuth@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth > -- ORIE STEELE Chief Technology Officer www.transmute.industries <https://transmute.industries>
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
