Change from Registry to Supported Protocols #401
Conversation
|
Thank you Tim, this is looking like a great start to me. I've filed a Chromium issue to track our impl work and referenced it in your PR description. |
|
PR made to Specref to add these references: tobie/specref#898 |
marcoscaceres
left a comment
marcoscaceres
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Like where this is going ... some initial feedback.
index.html
Outdated
| "openid4vp-1_0": { | ||
| title: "OpenID for Verifiable Presentations 1.0", | ||
| href: "https://openid.net/specs/openid-4-verifiable-presentations-1_0.html", | ||
| authors: ["Oliver Terbu", "Torsten Lodderstedt", "Kristina Yasuda", "Daniel Fett", "Joseph Heenan"], | ||
| date: "2025-07-09", | ||
| publisher: "OpenID Foundation" | ||
| }, | ||
| "openid4vci-1_0": { | ||
| title: "OpenID for Verifiable Credential Issuance 1.0", | ||
| href: "https://openid.net/specs/openid-4-verifiable-credential-issuance-1_0.html", | ||
| authors: ["Torsten Lodderstedt", "Kristina Yasuda", "Tobias Looker", "Paul Bastian"], | ||
| date: "2025-09-16", | ||
| publisher: "OpenID Foundation" | ||
| }, | ||
| "iso-18013-7-2025": { | ||
| title: "ISO/IEC TS 18013-7:2025 Personal identification — ISO-compliant driving licence Part 7: Mobile driving licence (mDL) add-on functions", | ||
| href: "https://www.iso.org/standard/91154.html", | ||
| date: "2025-05-01", | ||
| publisher: "International Organization for Standardization" | ||
| }, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Let's add this to specref, as they are published standards:
| "openid4vp-1_0": { | |
| title: "OpenID for Verifiable Presentations 1.0", | |
| href: "https://openid.net/specs/openid-4-verifiable-presentations-1_0.html", | |
| authors: ["Oliver Terbu", "Torsten Lodderstedt", "Kristina Yasuda", "Daniel Fett", "Joseph Heenan"], | |
| date: "2025-07-09", | |
| publisher: "OpenID Foundation" | |
| }, | |
| "openid4vci-1_0": { | |
| title: "OpenID for Verifiable Credential Issuance 1.0", | |
| href: "https://openid.net/specs/openid-4-verifiable-credential-issuance-1_0.html", | |
| authors: ["Torsten Lodderstedt", "Kristina Yasuda", "Tobias Looker", "Paul Bastian"], | |
| date: "2025-09-16", | |
| publisher: "OpenID Foundation" | |
| }, | |
| "iso-18013-7-2025": { | |
| title: "ISO/IEC TS 18013-7:2025 Personal identification — ISO-compliant driving licence Part 7: Mobile driving licence (mDL) add-on functions", | |
| href: "https://www.iso.org/standard/91154.html", | |
| date: "2025-05-01", | |
| publisher: "International Organization for Standardization" | |
| }, |
@copilot, are you able to send a pull request to specref for these, or do we need to do it directly in the other repository?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There is already a request for this. When they get added, I will update. For now, these should stay.
| // MARK: Supported Protocols | ||
| --> | ||
| <h2 id="supported-protocols"> | ||
| Supported protocols |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we should avoid the word "Supported" as passive voice begs the question "supported by who?". Also, it's not clear what "supported by this specification" means.
This should really be about, "protocols that are known to be allowed by user agents" as verified by userAgentAllowsProtocol() for instance.
We could even have a column(s) for user agent or engine (WebKit | Gecko | Chromium).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The text says: "supported by this specification."
index.html
Outdated
| `openid4vp-v1-unsigned` | ||
| </td> | ||
| <td> | ||
| Appendix A |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This would be great to link directly if possible.
| The {{DigitalCredentialCreateRequest/protocol}} member's value can be one | ||
| of the well-defined protocol identifiers defined in | ||
| [[[#protocol-registry]]] or a custom protocol identifier. | ||
| The {{DigitalCredentialCreateRequest/protocol}} member's value MUST be one |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This basically makes it an enum... if we put MUST here, then we need to also specify what happens when the value is not one of these (i.e., be mindful when this is user agent requirement or an authoring requirement).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yes, this PR is not done (it is marked draft and not ready for review)...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Noted... ping when ready or want me to have another early look.
| The {{DigitalCredentialCreateRequest/protocol}} member's value is be one | ||
| of the well-defined keys defined in [[[#protocol-registry]]] or any other | ||
| custom one. | ||
| The {{DigitalCredentialCreateRequest/protocol}} member's value MUST be one |
| </dl> | ||
| </section> | ||
| <h2 id="protocol-registry"> | ||
| Registry of protocols |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree we should delete this, but I'm wondering if any of this is salvageable for how new protocols are added to the spec. Should we have a non-normative note about "file a bug if you think your protocol belongs here?" or something?
|
@marcoscaceres I've opened a new pull request, #408, to work on those changes. Once the pull request is ready, I'll request review from you. |
Warning
This is a DRAFT and is not ready for WG review.
Closes #396
Closes #213
Closes #211
Closes #345
The following tasks have been completed:
Implementation commitment:
Documentation and checks
Preview | Diff