Skip to content

Normative version inconsistency for SD-JWT VC in 1.0 final #726

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
Sakurann wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Normative version inconsistency for SD-JWT VC in 1.0 final #726

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
d703d58
fixes #659 by changing typo in sd-jwt-vc version
Sakurann Apr 26, 2026
4871d4d
update sd-jwt vc version
Sakurann May 15, 2026
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
4 changes: 2 additions & 2 deletions 1.0/openid-4-verifiable-presentations-1_0.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -1762,7 +1762,7 @@ Implementers should be aware that this specification uses several specifications
* OpenID Federation 1.0 draft -43 [@!OpenID.Federation]
* SIOPv2 draft -13 [@!SIOPv2]
* Selective Disclosure for JWTs (SD-JWT) draft -22 [@!I-D.ietf-oauth-selective-disclosure-jwt]
* SD-JWT-based Verifiable Credentials (SD-JWT VC) draft -09 [@!I-D.ietf-oauth-sd-jwt-vc]
* SD-JWT-based Verifiable Credentials (SD-JWT VC) draft -16 [@!I-D.ietf-oauth-sd-jwt-vc]

@jogu jogu Jun 10, 2026 •
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Draft 16 contains at least one breaking change ( https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-oauth-sd-jwt-vc-16.html#name-document-history ):

Change lang to locale. While lang is more accurate, locale is what has traditionally been used in OpenID Connect and later related specs.

so I don't think we can just update to -16, unless people can think of language we can add that could explain this as not really being a breaking change.

There may be other breaking changes too, I didn't review the full history.

The alternative is to figure out how to make the normative references section of the draft refer to draft 10 (or the latest version that doesn't contain breaking changes). I don't know how we get mmarkdown/xml2rfc to reference a specific IETF draft rather than the latest one - probably we would need to create a manual reference instead of relying on the automatic [@!I-D.ietf-oauth-sd-jwt-vc] syntax.

* Fully-Specified Algorithms for JOSE and COSE draft -13 [@!I-D.ietf-jose-fully-specified-algorithms]

While breaking changes to the specifications referenced in this specification are not expected, should they occur, OpenID4VP implementations should continue to use the specifically referenced versions above in preference to the final versions, unless updated by a profile or new version of this specification.
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -3211,7 +3211,7 @@ The following outlines a suggested non-normative set of processing steps for SD-

##### Step 1: SD-JWT VC Processing

- A receiver (holder or verifier) of an SD-JWT VCLD applies the processing rules outlined in Section 4 of [@!I-D.ietf-oauth-sd-jwt-vc], including verifying signatures, validity periods, status information, etc.
- A receiver (holder or verifier) of an SD-JWT VCLD applies the processing rules outlined in Section 2 of [@!I-D.ietf-oauth-sd-jwt-vc], including verifying signatures, validity periods, status information, etc.

@awoie awoie May 27, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
- A receiver (holder or verifier) of an SD-JWT VCLD applies the processing rules outlined in Section 2 of [@!I-D.ietf-oauth-sd-jwt-vc], including verifying signatures, validity periods, status information, etc.
- A receiver (holder or verifier) of an SD-JWT VCLD applies the processing rules outlined in Section 2.4 of [@!I-D.ietf-oauth-sd-jwt-vc], including verifying signatures, validity periods, status information, etc.

@fkj fkj Jun 11, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I agree that section 2.4 is the better reference. Section 2.4 also references the validation rules in section 2.5, so scoping it down like this makes it easier to find the rules without being too specific.

- If the `vct` value is associated with any SD-JWT VC Type Metadata, schema validation of the entire SD-JWT VCLD is performed, including the nested `ld` claim.
- Additionally, trust framework rules are applied, such as ensuring the Credential Issuer is authorized to issue SD-JWT VCLDs for the specified `vct` value.

Expand Down
4 changes: 2 additions & 2 deletions 1.1/openid-4-verifiable-presentations-1_1.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -1822,7 +1822,7 @@ Implementers should be aware that this specification uses several specifications
* OpenID Federation 1.0 draft -43 [@!OpenID.Federation]
* SIOPv2 draft -13 [@!SIOPv2]
* Selective Disclosure for JWTs (SD-JWT) draft -22 [@!I-D.ietf-oauth-selective-disclosure-jwt]
* SD-JWT-based Verifiable Credentials (SD-JWT VC) draft -09 [@!I-D.ietf-oauth-sd-jwt-vc]
* SD-JWT-based Verifiable Credentials (SD-JWT VC) draft -16 [@!I-D.ietf-oauth-sd-jwt-vc]
* Fully-Specified Algorithms for JOSE and COSE draft -13 [@!I-D.ietf-jose-fully-specified-algorithms]

While breaking changes to the specifications referenced in this specification are not expected, should they occur, OpenID4VP implementations should continue to use the specifically referenced versions above in preference to the final versions, unless updated by a profile or new version of this specification.
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -3276,7 +3276,7 @@ The following outlines a suggested non-normative set of processing steps for SD-

##### Step 1: SD-JWT VC Processing

- A receiver (holder or verifier) of an SD-JWT VCLD applies the processing rules outlined in Section 4 of [@!I-D.ietf-oauth-sd-jwt-vc], including verifying signatures, validity periods, status information, etc.
- A receiver (holder or verifier) of an SD-JWT VCLD applies the processing rules outlined in Section 2 of [@!I-D.ietf-oauth-sd-jwt-vc], including verifying signatures, validity periods, status information, etc.

@awoie awoie May 27, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
- A receiver (holder or verifier) of an SD-JWT VCLD applies the processing rules outlined in Section 2 of [@!I-D.ietf-oauth-sd-jwt-vc], including verifying signatures, validity periods, status information, etc.
- A receiver (holder or verifier) of an SD-JWT VCLD applies the processing rules outlined in Section 2.4 of [@!I-D.ietf-oauth-sd-jwt-vc], including verifying signatures, validity periods, status information, etc.

- If the `vct` value is associated with any SD-JWT VC Type Metadata, schema validation of the entire SD-JWT VCLD is performed, including the nested `ld` claim.
- Additionally, trust framework rules are applied, such as ensuring the Credential Issuer is authorized to issue SD-JWT VCLDs for the specified `vct` value.

Expand Down
Loading