Hi all,
as I could see the Draft 10 of SD-JWT VC the DID content was deleted in Section
3.5. As I could not find but may have overseen the decision by WG in rough
consensus: May the editors or somebody else please point me when and where it
was decided to delete this?
Personall I don`t agree t
ints you made, but did a small editorial PR fixing some of
them.
Best Regards,
Christian
From: Denis <mailto:denis.i...@free.fr>
Date: Monday, 7. April 2025 at 12:21
To: Steffen Schwalm
<mailto:Steffen.Schwalm@msg.group>, Kristina Yasuda
<mailto:yasudakrist...@gmail.com>,
Dear all,
good news for Kristina & Torsten: After meeting and common solution with chairs
I agree to move the draft forward.
Best
steffen
Von: Steffen Schwalm
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 3. April 2025 19:32
An: Kristina Yasuda ; ANTHONY NADALIN
Cc: torsten=40lodderstedt@dmarc.ietf.org; o
2025 21:49
An: Steffen Schwalm
Cc: Kristina Yasuda ; ANTHONY NADALIN
; torsten=40lodderstedt@dmarc.ietf.org; oauth
Betreff: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Re: Second WGLC for Token Status List
Caution: This email originated from outside of the organization. Despite an
upstream security check of
t;mailto:oauth-ow...@ietf.org>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of OAuth digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Second WGLC for Token Status List (Brian Campbell)
2.
Fully agree to Denis. Recommend to do the changes before publication
Von: Denis
Gesendet: Montag, 7. April 2025 21:20
An: Steffen Schwalm ; Kristina Yasuda
; ANTHONY NADALIN
Cc: torsten=40lodderstedt@dmarc.ietf.org; oauth
Betreff: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Re: Second WGLC for Token Status List
I strongly oppose against moving forward the specification as Issues still open.
1. There´s no documented decision on the well-known x509 issue – beside the
wishes of the authors
2. Still wait for information from chairs where and how to solve issue when
not in TokenStatusList
3. Means
: Freitag, 7. Februar 2025 18:56
An: Steffen Schwalm
Cc: oauth@ietf.org
Betreff: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Re: Status List Feature Request
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
While going through the feedback and issues on github, there was one bigger
discussion point that we would like to bring to the mailing list. Steffen
Schwalm asked for support for X.509 Certificate revocation with the Status List
- in that case the Status List describing the status of an
ns. Only open attachments and links from
known and trusted senders.
Legal requirements can only be adjudicated by legal means. The common approach
in standards developments should be to enable a legal solution not to mandate
it.
thx ..Tom (mobile)
On Mon, Dec 16, 2024, 11:14 PM Steffen
In > 80% of use cases the retention period is not defined by law but defined by
records manager after receiving the information from holder. So data retention
won`t work. For those thinking about GDPR: Yes possible within GDPR too as GDPR
does not require definition retention during collection o
Hi Mike,
as you mentioned relevant is consensus not alleged majority.
Von: Michael Jones
Gesendet: Dienstag, 3. Dezember 2024 16:24
An: Hannes Tschofenig ; oauth@ietf.org
Betreff: [OAUTH-WG] Re: Precipitous unreviewed change
Caution: This email originated from outside of the organization. Desp
he 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 o
ut they are wrong according
to your own rules. We would not have to waste our time if the editors of SD-JWT
VC draft would follow IETF Rules and keep the agreements they made with
internal and external parties.
Best
Steffen
Von: Brian Campbell
Gesendet: Montag, 18. November 2024 12:51
An: S
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 igno
ge 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 consen
d 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&
Hi Daniel,
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. An assumption is great but not sufficient as in any
standardization body. According to IETF rules the consensus
@Christian: If you want to replace certificates with JWT/CWT (in case using it
for QEAA acc. Art. 45b ff.) it might be meaningful regarding validation (and so
revocation subjects) to have look into current development of ETSI EN 319 102
(last version 03/24) which defines current signature valida
19 matches
Mail list logo
