I think it sounds rather problematic to allow ambiguous situations where
you have an identifier and multiple possible ways of resolving it,
without a clear indication which one should be used.
In my opinion, this information can't be in the credential or in a
verifier config, it needs to be fu
If we look at the comments and thumbs up / down reactions in the
original PR in question, I think it's pretty clear what the "predominant
view" is:
https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-sd-jwt-vc/pull/251
Markus
On 12/3/24 4:23 PM, Michael Jones wrote:
Thanks for the explanation, Hannes.
For wh
ve the non-actionable text.
My two cents worth,
-- Mike
*From:* Markus Sabadello
*Sent:* Thursday, November 14, 2024 11:11 AM
*To:* oauth@ietf.org
*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
of the
IETF’s consensus building and standards development process. Congruent
with that process, I would suggest that those advocating for treatment
of W3C's DIDs in the IETF write an Internet-Draft and utilize that as
a vehicle for input into the standards process.
On Thu, Nov 14, 202
nd 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 tr
