search

oauth-wg / oauth-sd-jwt-vc

draft-terbu-sd-jwt-vc
Creative Commons Zero v1.0 Universal
20 stars 12 forks source link

Tightened exposition of Issuer-signed JWT Verification Key Validation section (Drop all references to DIDs and DID resolution while leaving the exensiblity point for those who want to define a profile of SD-JWT VC using DIDs) #251

Closed bc-pi closed 1 week ago

peacekeeper commented 2 months ago

I suggest the title of this PR be changed to "Remove support for DIDs", in order to:

alenhorvat commented 1 week ago

A breaking change has been merged without even trying to resolve the issue with parties that are impacted?

bc-pi commented 1 week ago

it's not a breaking change, Alen

alenhorvat commented 1 week ago

Fantastic!

By having a reference that allowed project to consistently implement key resolution using decentralised identifiers, this removal (without even trying to reach a consensus or even accept help from several people who offered it), you removed the option from the specs.

What's the consensus mechanism in IETF specs writing? This decision is damaging both IETF, authors of this specs, and the community that would otherwise benefit from resolving the problem. Seems like requirements of your potential clients are unimportant.

andorsk commented 1 week ago

I am generally not very active in the IETF community, so apologies if I am misunderstanding something, but as a matter of process: There was no description provided on the PR and no issue linked as a reference for why this decision was made.

The breadcrumbs I've found have been left by the comments on the PR, not the authors, and I would like to understand both positions better.

Furthermore, as someone following trails here, making a normative change on a highly used spec without contextualizing it does not feel appropriate relative to the IETF policies on Pull Requests (4.2).

Given the impact to the pro-DID community along with the adoption level of SD-JWT, it's possible this should have been classified as a substantive change and discussed using the policies generally prescribed by the IETF and discussed on the mailing list.

It would be immensely appreciated to add a description or link to the discussion that contextualizes this PR written by the authors of this PR.

ThierryThevenet commented 6 days ago

Strange we are already several implementers using sd-jwt with DIDs!