Governance process for data sovereignty checks of credentials and policy purposes

[DanielaWuensch]

Description

Situation

As of today (Catena-X Release 24.05), we have a set of credentials and a set of policy purposes defined in the CX ODRL profile. We know already that changes will come such as

• new verifiable credentials will be introduces
• new purposes will be set to deprecated and finally removed
• existing purposes will be set to deprecated and finally removed
• existing constraints will be set to mandatory or to optional

  Tasks to be done for this ticket

  To define what happens in such cases, governance rules need to be defined what happens in these cases

• e.g. both are valid in parallel
• e.g. context what version is valid clarified upfront

Impact = Outcome

Governance rules should be defined in

• CX kits
• new versions of purposes and verifiable credentials

CX standards as part of Houston process will be linked

Additional information

• [x] I'm willing to contribute to this feature

[DanielaWuensch]

Labels: "SSI" and "data sovereignty" will be added as soon as they exist

[DanielaWuensch]

In refinement we might decide that it is not relevant for edc and no change necessary there.

[jjeroch]

@DanielaWuensch can you please update the issue content. The ticket title talks about the governance process while the ticket talks about:

• new verifiable credentials will be introduces
• new purposes will be set to deprecated and finally removed
• existing purposes will be set to deprecated and finally removed

The ticket is not clearly defining that the scope talks purely about the definition and documentation of the governance process. Could you please check this once

[DanielaWuensch]

@jjeroch : Thanks for the feedback. I structured it differently to make clear that it is only about defining the process.

[DanielaWuensch]

@DanielaWuensch : As follow up, Houston planning will be linked.

[stephanbcbauer]

was presented in open planning ⇾ no implementation in tractus-x needed

[HFocken]

I'd like to contribute

[stephanbcbauer]

Hello @DanielaWuensch , @HFocken

Since the feature is a 24.08 feature and the development phase is coming to an end, we need a status on the feature.

• [ ] Currently you are assigned (Responsible) → Is this correct? If not, please assign the correct contact person
• [ ] Please check whether the status (backlog, work in progress ...) is set correctly
• [ ] Please check whether there is an assignment to a committee or expert group (supported-by) to be found on the board
• [ ] Please comment on the current status of the feature
• [ ] Are all SubTasks (issues from other repositories that deal with the feature) linked? → The easiest way is to mention the feature here in the issue (via the ID) so we can see which teams/repositories are involved.

If you need any clarification, please get in touch, thank you very much. Stephan

[DanielaWuensch]

Governance process is included in this page by @HFocken