Hi Gareth,

Thanks a lot for taking the time to walk through the two cases. I hadn't really 
thought about sd_hash vs issuer_jwt_hash as a choice the holder makes per link, 
and that’s exactly what I was missing for the delegation part.

I'll rebuild it on top of Delegate SD-JWT for -01 and send it your way before 
posting, if you don't mind having a look. I'll also keep an eye on the issues 
and chime in if anything from the invoicing side seems useful.

Cheers,
Carlos

> El 4 nov 2026, a las 21:11, Gareth Oliver <[email protected]> escribió:
> 
> carlos: Yup! Publis 
> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-delegate-sd-jwt/) and 
> working on an updated version (will present a roadmap at ietf, but you can 
> see the issues opened here: 
> https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-delegate-sd-jwt/issues. 
> 
> @Blake: The idea of issuer_jwt_hash is for cases where the Holder wishes the 
> Delegate Holder to be able to change what is disclosed from the preceding 
> SD-JWT. 
> 
> So if you wanted to do a chain that looked like: (Base SD-JWT) Invoice -> 
> (Delegate 1 KB-SD-JWT) narrowed invoice -> (Delegate 2 KB-SD-JWT) further 
> narrowed invoice you'd want to use issuer_jwt_hash for Delegate 1, so that 
> way when Delegate Holder 1 further delegates they can remove the claims from 
> both the Delegate 1 SD-JWT *and* the base SD-JWT. 
> 
> A case where you might not want to do it would be if the base SD-JWT was some 
> sort of User Credential. So you have User Credential -> (Delegate 1 
> KB-SD-JWT) Invoice -> (Delegate 2 KB-SD-JWT) narrowed Invoice. 
> 
> Here Delegate 1 could have the sd_hash claim, to forbid the Delegate Holder 
> from removing the disclosures as it moves downstream (if you, as the Holder 
> always want Verifiers be able to identify that it was 'this user' who made 
> the delegation). 
> 
> I have an open question if we want to be able to partially do this (e.g. 
> allow the Holder to require certain disclosures are always disclosed by the 
> Delegate Holder, in a generic policy way) but I don't really have the 
> implementation or use case experience to say that complexity is necessary. 
> 
> cheers,
> Gareth
> 
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2026 at 4:38 PM Blake Morrison <[email protected] 
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> Hi Carlos, Gareth,
>> 
>> > I'll rework the delegation part on top of it for -01.
>> 
>> Section 4.1 of Delegate SD-JWT is worth a look for that as a delegate
>> can only leave the parent mandate's disclosures out of what a
>> counterparty sees if the holder put issuer_jwt_hash in the KB-JWT
>> instead of sd_hash. Otherwise every invoice carries the purchasing
>> policy along with it.
>> 
>> Gareth, is issuer_jwt_hash the one you'd expect a buyer's wallet to
>> use by default?
>> 
>> Blake

_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to