All, As per the feedback received on the mailing list, we consider this issue as closed. The document will process without the DID Resolution part, which can be covered by a separate document that extends this document.
Regards, Rifaat & Hannes On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 9:24 AM Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks Steffen! > > Hi Markus, > > We understand the frustration, but we think this is the best way forward > for all parties involved. > > Regards, > Rifaat > > > On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 5:57 AM Steffen Schwalm <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hi Markus, >> >> >> >> while I understand you anger: As long as extension are there you could >> add an additional spec describing how to use DID within SD-JWT VC. As we >> already have possible SDO for this I kindly ask you to contribute on the >> subject. >> >> >> >> @Rifaat, @Hannes: Thanks for your work as chairs. >> >> >> >> Best >> >> Steffen >> >> >> >> *Von:* Markus Sabadello <[email protected]> >> *Gesendet:* Montag, 15. September 2025 19:58 >> *An:* [email protected] >> *Betreff:* [OAUTH-WG] Re: Call for WG Feedback on DID Resolution in >> SD-JWT VC >> >> >> >> *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 always remains. Only open attachments >> and links from known and trusted senders. >> >> On one of the relevant Github threads, 15 people agreed that removal was >> a bad idea: >> >> https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-sd-jwt-vc/issues/250#issuecomment-2256016913 >> >> There are many other Github issues, comments, and PRs that also expressed >> disagreement with the removal. >> >> Several people have stated on Github that removal would be a problem for >> their existing implementations. >> >> In the previous attempt to remove DIDs, that removal had to be reverted >> after intervention by the chairs. >> >> In this last PR which now removed DIDs, there were more -1 than +1 votes >> on Github. >> >> In an earlier version of the specification, support for DID Resolution >> was mandatory; after much discussion, the WG consensus was to make it >> optional. >> >> In the various discussions about this topic, multiple substantial >> arguments were articulated why the feature shouldn't be removed. None of >> those arguments were discussed in the WG. >> >> In contrast, no real arguments have been brought forth why this >> (optional!) feature should be removed; instead, the arguments in favor of >> removal were "it's tiresome", "it's stuff that doesn't work anyway", "it's >> a reputational risk", "there were no real objections to removal other than >> DIDs are great", "you can define an extension", and "DIDs are not >> interoperable" (without really explaining or discussing this last claim). >> >> The editor who has now removed the feature in his fifth attempt has in >> the past admitted to trying to prevent active WG discussion about this >> topic. >> >> At the last IETF meeting, that same editor has given an extremely >> one-sided presentation about this controversial topic, with almost no time >> allowed for alternative arguments and discussion. >> >> At least one of the people who are now supporting removal in this thread >> is supporting it "because there is no chance to win". >> >> Silently removing a feature that many people didn't want to be removed, >> and then asking for agreement to the removal afterwards, is not an >> appropriate approach to handling such a situation. >> >> The discussion culture around removal of this feature has been passive >> aggressive, provocative, dismissive, instead of substantial discussion >> about the pros and cons. The group pressure to remove this has been >> enormous. >> >> Markus >> >> On 9/13/25 1:53 AM, Rifaat Shekh-Yusef wrote: >> >> 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 -- [email protected] >> >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OAuth mailing list -- [email protected] >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >> >
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
