Skip to content

2024 03 11 Meeting Notes

Jump to bottom
Tim Cappalli edited this page Mar 11, 2024 · 1 revision

2024-03-11 (A Call)

Organizer: Tim Cappalli

Scribe: Lee Campbell

Agenda

Attendees

  • Lee Campbell(Google/Android)
  • Tim Cappalli (Okta)
  • Loffie Jordaan (AAMVA)
  • Ryan Galluzzo (NIST)
  • Wendy Seltzer (Tucows)
  • Oliver Terbu (MATTR)
  • Orie Steele (Transmute)
  • Rick Byers (Google Chrome)
  • Manu Sporny (Digital Bazaar)
  • Andrew Regenscheid (NIST)
  • Tom Jones
  • Tim Shamilov (Block)
  • Hicham Lozi (Apple)
  • Mike Jones (independent)
  • Gail Hodges (OIDF)
  • Nick Doty (CDT)
  • Sam Goto (Google/Chrome)
  • Gareth Oliver (Google)
  • Sebastien Bahloul (IDEMIA)
  • Marina Ioannou (Scytales)
  • Torsten Lodderstedt

Notes

Administrivia

Tim: No call 3/20 due to IETF conflicts

Tim: Online W3C breakout sessions 3/12. Highlighting 4 sessions relevant to us. (see the agenda above for the links). Notes will be shared. No recordings

Tim: Had requests to re-evaluate call times. Kristina: One of the calls is not EU friendly. Can we shift it a few hours earlier? Would still be late for the EU, but it makes it possible for people who really want to attend.

Rick: Will try accommodate, but folks need to vote in the doodle

Mike: US just moved daylight saving, so things will be off for a few weeks

Rick: Target the doodle poll for a B call starting after Apr 1st, when EU/NZ change to DST

Tim: We keep A call as-is

Query Syntax part 2

Tim: Still figuring out where the document should live. Not everyone can join OpenID quickly, but they are here.

Manu: No need to delay other query language specs on this

Torsten: If its part of OpenID4VP it should be in the OpenID4VP working group. Overly focusing on the query language, there are more important things to standardize on (e.g RP authentication etc..)

Sam: Browsers want to look into these requests, so it is important to discuss this stuff.

Torsten: What is the role of the browser here and the split of the responsibilities. Who decides what formats can play

Sam: Yes we want a small number. There is a trade off and there will only be a handful the browser understands. And things browsers can’t understand has more friction.

Rick: Chrome doesn’t want to block requests - will allow everything. More just heuristics and risk based analysis to change the UI friction.

Manu: +1 Sam and Rick, 1 query language is not going to work for 20+ formats. RE: acceptable tradeoffs, one is to see a warning when the browser doesn’t recognize something. Every format having its own QL decouples the format and allows communities to work on something themselve. Nothing to say that different formats won’t share the same query language.

Torsten: Not sure why the number of formats we have today implies we need per format query languages

Tim: This could be a dedicated item

Manu: Folks don’t like Presentation Exchange. Implication is complexity is coming from the goal of being format agnostic. It could be simpler to do format specific languages and this may cause a explosion of formats

Kristina: Not all of the complexity goes from being format agnostic. Can look at the mdoc profile as a way to reduce the scope of PE

Oliver: Query Specific Languages make sense as they simplify things. Please read the doc for explanations. e.g Mdoc have mdoc specific things, like namespaces etc.. But there is a challenge that we dont have an explosion of languages, so we need to figure that out

Rick: We don’t want the browser vendors/W3C to be king makers in this space. OpenID4VP is likely the right venue to define the query language

Torsten: Would like to have the query language conversation at OpenID and folks are welcome to attend.

Martijn: If its just OpenID4VP related it might be ok, but if the only language we support it might be an issue.

Manu: There are quite a few formats not related to OpenID, so disagree with everything being discussed there. There is a meta thing on top which allows you to query for say an mdoc or a VC, that should belong in the W3C. But the query at the format level could live outside.

Nick: I care about how this is presented to the user and they need to understand the consent. Will be hard to be consistent here if the query languages are defined in many different forums.

Torsten: The protocol field is the current switch in the Digital Creds API. Not sure we need anything else?

Orie: If its the case that browsers will understand the query languages, then does writing WebIDL for the query language become important

Tim:: Where does OpenID Foundation think this should live?

Mike: Not clear if it’s ok to use something produced in a community group in OpenID specs. OpenID aims to make everything usable by all. So the clean path is to do the work there.

Gail: Just need to sign contribution agreements (Lee: I think). Reach out to Gail if you want to know more details and happy to work with folks and be supportive. Federated Identity WG

Tim: Background. Original thinking was that the Federation work had already incubated for many years it was decided for it to go to a WG. We left this work out of that because this hadn’t incubated long enough. We decided to use the WICG. Federated WG charter has gone for review. There were comments suggesting that work from this group could be included, or at least not actively not excluded. Pull request suggestions ‘Should be listed explicitly, so we wouldn’t need to recharter’. Please give feedback to the PR

Manu: We would not have approved the group with this item included. Think its dangerous to not have AC review. Recharting is a pain but not impossible. If it goes in now it would be without the AC having seen/commented on it. Wouldn’t want this. Seems like a bad idea to make the change at this point. Manu would likely object if it did go for AC review due to lack of incubation

Nick: Also agree its not appropriate to make this change after an AC review that specifically didn’t include this work in its charter. It’s a large and new fundamental API so it needs appropriate review. Suggest working on the scoping and figuring out what is proposed to the AC and we can recharter when ready

Wendy: Speaking as a chair of the proposed group. Deliverable from this group could be used to seek the formal support for inclusion in the charter

Tim: Pointing out Torsten wants us to consider issuance.

IIW

Tim: Let's coordinate on the doc to figure out sessions. IIW Spring 2024 - DC Session Planning

Clone this wiki locally