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

Much you argued about IETF standardization process but still acting in your own and not standardization interest as you are in breach of RFC 8874. As you did major change in a draft, you need the consensus before creating new stage for alleged comments (see RFC 8874). IETF process does not fores

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

Much has been made in this thread about consensus and the publication of drafts. Despite some apparent misunderstandings here, Internet-Drafts (I-Ds) are in fact a foundational component of the IETF’s consensus building and standards development process. Congruent with that process, I would suggest

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

This kind of response is consistent with the behavior we have seen on this topic so far, simply ignoring and brushing aside concrete arguments and statements that are obviously "tiresome" to the editors. At least admit that you made a mistake by declaring "consensus" in the group, when that ob

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

Mike, Repeating these false claims over and over again about DIDs being non-interoperable doesn't make it more true. There are many interoperable implementations based on DIDs, e.g. see in EBSI VECTOR, TRACE4EU, US DHS SVIP, TruAge, California DMV, BlueSky, Bhutan NDI, Velocity Network, TBD, D

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

All, Hannes and I discussed this thread, and we think that the best course of action from here is to schedule an interim meeting to discuss this directly. Because of that, please refrain from replying to this email at this time. Regards, Rifaat & Hannes (OAuth WG Chairs) On Mon, Nov 18, 2024

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

Fully agree to Markus. The interoperable implementations exist: Recommend that experts from those implementations contribute to allegedly missed sections. Beside this, Beside RFC 2026 I refer to RFC 8874 valid your drafting of your own document “More mature documents require not only consensus,

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

Hi Brian, thanks a lot for your mail. May you please point me to the rule that only those people who contributed more than 2 times may advice you to follow your own rules? “that describes DID usage with SD-JWT VC (or base SD-JWT or even at the general JWT/JOSE layer) with language that's suffi

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

Fully agree. There`s only the personal tireless of the editors – but this is no valid argument in international standardization. Von: Markus Sabadello Gesendet: Montag, 18. November 2024 13:38 An: Brian Campbell Cc: oauth@ietf.org Betreff: [OAUTH-WG] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-sd-jwt-vc-0

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

Hi Steffen, Thank you for your interest in this work. You've made some strong statements, particularly regarding IETF procedures and norms—especially for what appears to be your second ever

[OAUTH-WG] draft-ietf-oauth-selective-disclosure-jwt-14: Comments and issues raised during the 1rst and the 2nd WGLC have not been addressed in -14

This email is mostly a duplication of the issue #528 that has been added during the week-end: Comments and issues raised during the 1rst and the 2nd WGLC have not been addressed in -14 #528 https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-selective-disclosure-jwt/issues/528 However, I have added a ne