I'm pretty confused by this. I don't really understand what defines or the specific use case that is different from the existing mechanisms.
I think the most poignant question for me would be related to this statement in the draft: * The gap is most visible for AI agents.* What gap? On Mon, Sep 28, 2026 at 11:31 AM 이수현 <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > I have posted a new individual draft: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lee-oauth-dpop-credential-presentation/ > > It lets a client present an issuer-signed JWT credential directly to a > resource > server using DPoP (RFC 9449), with no authorization server or OpenID4VP > flow in between. > The wire format is that of a DPoP-bound access token; the draft adds only > three rules: the issuer is an AS or IdP the resource server already trusts, > the credential may carry no issuer-set audience, and the resource server > checks its status. > > The motivation is clients that can simply submit a credential, such as AI > agents > calling MCP or A2A endpoints, for which OpenID4VP is more than needed. > It follows the pattern of draft-ietf-oauth-attestation-based-client-auth, > but for the holder's credential rather than client authentication. > > Comments are very welcome. > > Best regards, > Su-hyeon Forten Lee > _______________________________________________ > 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]
