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 --oauth@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email tooauth-le...@ietf.org
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list -- oauth@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to oauth-le...@ietf.org
