As discussed & agreed with you Rifaat & Hannes: I agree to the removal if the existing extension points in the SD-JWT VC Spec will be kept as they are now (in the more clearer form than in former versions of the spec). Because this ensures the possible extension in future.
________________________________ From: Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <rifaat.s.i...@gmail.com<mailto:rifaat.s.i...@gmail.com>> Sent: Friday, September 12, 2025 6:53 PM To: oauth <oauth@ietf.org<mailto:oauth@ietf.org>> Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Call for WG Feedback on DID Resolution in SD-JWT VC EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated outside of our organisation. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe. All, This is an official call for getting the WG's opinion on the last open issue in draft-ietf-oauth-sd-jwt-vc-10 concerning the removal of the DID Document Resolution. In an early version of the SD-JWT VC document, we had three Issuer-signed JWT Verification Key Validation techniques: 1. JWT VC Issuer Metadata 2. X509 based certificates 3. DID Document Resolution Do you agree with the removal of the DID Document Resolution option from the SD JWT VC specification? Please note that this does not prevent future extensions. Interested parties are free to define and publish an extension that adds DID Document Resolution support, if desired. Please, reply on the mailing list with your preference by October 3rd. Regards, Rifaat & Hannes
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list -- oauth@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to oauth-le...@ietf.org
