Moving a somewhat mature draft to another WG is highly likely slow down the progress on that document: there is no guarantee there will be an overlap in the WG members, there is a risk that discussions that were already resolved to be re-opened to be, etc.
I consider SD-JWT closer to a finish line then a start line and would not like its progress being slowed down by moving it to another WG at this point of document's lifecycle. I am not in favor of moving SD-JWT work to SPICE WG. Best, Kristina From: OAuth <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Hannes Tschofenig Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2023 4:21 AM To: oauth <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Relationship between SPICE and OAuth Hi all, I am a bit puzzled by the response Pam and I received when putting the agenda for the SPICE BOF together. It appears that most people have not paid attention to the discussions during the last few months. Let me try to get you up to speed. So, here is my summary. The OAuth working group has seen a lot of interest in the context of the SD-JWT/VC work and there have been complaints about the three WG sessions we scheduled at the last IETF meeting. (FWIW neither Rifaat nor I understood why we received these complaints given that people asked us for more slots. But that's another story...) The SD-JWT/VC work is architecturally different to the classical OAuth (which is not a problem) but raises questions about the scope of the work done in the OAuth working group, as defined by the charter. The charter of a group is a "contract" with the steering committee (IESG) about the work we are supposed to be doing. There is the expectation that the work described in the charter and in the milestones somehow matches the work the group is doing (at least to some approximation). See also the mail from Roman to the OAuth list for the type of questions that surfaced: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/a_MEz2SqU7JYEw3gKxKzSrRlQFA/ In time for the Prague IETF meeting a BOF request (with the shiny name SPICE, see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bofreq-prorock-secure-patterns-for-internet-credentials-spice/) was submitted. It was subsequently approved by the IESG. SPICE aims to cover the scope of the SD-JWT/VC work (plus work on defining the CWT-based counterparts) -- my rough summary; details are here: https://github.com/transmute-industries/ietf-spice-charter/blob/main/charter.md This BOF request again raised questions about the scope and the relationship with OAuth, see Roman's note here: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spice/Aoe86A0x6bezllwx17Xd5TOQ3Pc/ Now, we are in the final stages of preparing the BOF for the Prague IETF and in the agenda preparation we repeately get asked the same question: "Has the transfer of some of the OAuth documents already been agreed?" The answer is "no". Nothing has been agreed. The purpose of the BOF is to find this agreement. So, if you have an opinion whether some of the OAuth documents (in particular draft-ietf-oauth-sd-jwt-vc, draft-ietf-oauth-selective-disclosure-jwt, draft-ietf-oauth-status-list) should move to a new working group then you should speak up **now**. The SPICE BOF (and the WIMSE BOF) will happen on Tuesday next week. The first OAuth WG session happens shortly afterwards (also on Tuesday). The outcome of the BOF(s) will guide us in our discussion about re-chartering the OAuth working group (which is an item on the OAuth agenda, see https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/118/materials/agenda-118-oauth-03). Rifaat, Pam and I are mediators in this process and therefore we rely on your input. Since you have to do the work, you should think about where you want to do it. Ciao Hannes PS: A process-related note. If you are author of a working group document you are working for the group. With the transition from an individual document to a working group document you have relinquished control to the group. While your opinion is important, it has the same weight as the opinion of any other working group participant. The theme is "We reject: kings, presidents, and voting. We believe in: rough consensus and running code".
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
