Re: PR 401, chairs’ determination of consensus

Hi Brian, 

Thank you for documenting your objection. Per the W3C Process, 5.2.2, https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#managing-dissent the chairs have recorded a decision with dissent, meaning we think the Working Group has considered the relevant information and chosen reasonably among tradeoffs.  

If you choose, you may register a Formal Objection, as described in the Process, 5.5, https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#registering-objections In any event, your outstanding objection will be noted at the next document transition. 

Best,
—Wendy

> On Feb 2, 2026, at 1:59 PM, Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2026 at 3:24 PM Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.org <mailto:wendy@seltzer.org>> wrote:
>> Hi FedID WG members, 
>> 
>> Discussion on yesterday’s call was slated to close PR 401. We apologize that the call didn’t reach a real-time decision, but in reviewing past consensus calls and decisions, we find justification to resolve the outstanding issues and merge that PR. 
>> 
>> After TPAC, and on-list afterwards, we recorded the WG’s decision to proceed with 
>> > Option 7 in github issue 396:
>> >     • Drop registry from the spec
>> >     • Normatively reference OpenID4VP 1.0 (signed, unsigned, multisigned), OpenID4VCI, and ISO 18013-7 Annex C in the spec
>> >     • Requests with unsupported protocols are ignored
>> 
>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-fedid-wg/2025Nov/0004.html
>> 
>> Hearing no objections, we minuted that decision as final Dec. 2
>> https://github.com/w3c-fedid/meetings/blob/main/2025/2025-12-02-DCAPI-A-notes.md#aob
> 
> I did not object on that specific occasion, but I have objected to the same issue numerous times on calls, in issues, and in PRs. I am also far from the only participant who does not want to see the effective endorsement of a rent-seeking standards publication model, along with the barriers to review, implementation, and adoption that come with it. Consensus reached through the attrition of dissenting voices is not a healthy model.
>  
>> 
>> Since then, we have been working to update the spec to reflect that decision, primarily through PR 401. 401 was most recently blocked on terminology (“supported protocols” or “protocols”), on which the group reached agreement at the last two calls. 
>> 
>> A new issue with the PR was raised 4 days ago[1] opposing normative reference to ISO 18013-7 Annex C because it is not-freely-available. See also Issue 214 [2] 
>> 
>> The chairs consider the preponderance of voices in support of this reference and 
>>     • Existing and intended and uses of the API as an alternative to custom schemes 
>>     • Understanding that the ISO spec will be made freely available this year [3] 
> 
> This DC API work is one of the few meaningful leverage points available to encourage broader access to currently fee-gated specification(s), and to do so in a way that benefits implementers and the wider community. My understanding is that any free availability, if it happens, would be time-limited. Against that backdrop, it seems unfortunate to relinquish that leverage based on an expectation or hope that the ISO specification “will likely be made freely available next year,”[3] particularly given the history and incentives involved.
> 
>  
>>     • W3C Normative reference policy [4]
> 
> This part too, https://www.w3.org/guide/process/tilt/normative-references.html#orgs or especially? I've not consulted "the Team" myself but don't see how the answers to #1 and #3 can be anything but a hard "no."
> 
>    Who produced the document?
> 
> Is it produced by a group that the Team believes follows the OpenStand principles <https://open-stand.org/about-us/principles/>?
> Is the normative version of the referenced document available in English? If not, is there an English translation?
> Is the referenced document available on the Web at no cost and without limitation?
> 
>  
>> 
>> We overrule the objection to referencing ISO 18013-7 Annex C, and encourage editors to merge PR 401, implementing the WG’s November decision. 
>> 
>> Thanks for your patience as we work through the Process,
>> —Wendy, for the WG co-chairs
>> 
>> [1] https://github.com/w3c-fedid/digital-credentials/pull/401#pullrequestreview-3697669849
>> [2] https://github.com/w3c-fedid/digital-credentials/issues/214
>> [3] https://github.com/w3c-fedid/meetings/blob/main/2025/2025-11-14-DCAPI-TPAC-notes.md#registry-all---50-minutes
>> [4] https://www.w3.org/guide/process/tilt/normative-references.html
>> 
>> 
> 
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any file attachments from your computer. Thank you.