Intent to Migrate: Digital Credentials

[marcoscaceres]

Working group decision to adopt

The working group decision to adopt this spec can be found here section 3.2.

Edited by Tim: The Federated Identity WG has not yet decided to adopt this spec. Consensus call to happen later in March.

Proposal

Please provide a link to the proposal. Preferably in the proposals repository.

Summary

This document specifies an API to enable user agents to mediate access to, and presentation of, digital credentials such as a driver's license, government-issued identification card, and/or other types of digital credential. The API builds on Credential Management Level 1 as a means by which to request a digital credential from a user agent or underlying platform.

Motivation and Use Cases

This document defines an API enabling a website to request presentation of a digital credential. The API design is agnostic to both credential presentation exchange protocols and credential formats. The API supports the following goals:

• Keep the act of requesting separate from the specific protocol, enabling extensibility.
• Require unencrypted requests for user-agent inspection.
• Assume encrypted responses for privacy.
• Require transient activation for requests to ensure user participation.
• Enable platform-provided credential selection UX.
• Support secure cross-device requests with proximity checks.
  Examples of use cases include presenting a driving license, passport, proof of employment, or proof of education.

Compatibility Risk

No significant compatibility risks are identified.

Ongoing technical constraints

There are no known technical constraints for implementing this feature in any environment (desktop, mobile, tablets, TV, eBooks, automotive, etc.).

Link to implementation experience and demos

• WebKit meta bug
• Chrome origin trial

Data

Refer to the explainer for data indicating the impact of this enhancement.

Security and Privacy

The security and privacy implications are covered in the specification.

Accessibility

The accessibility implications are covered in the specification.

Internationalization

The internationalization implications are covered in the specification.

[marcoscaceres]

@simoneonofri, I think I can transfer the repo to you, and you can transfer it to the W3C org (whatever you do, don't fork it!).

We need to put a few things in place before migrating, but should only take like 1 hour.

[marcoscaceres]

Here is the process:
https://github.com/WICG/admin/wiki/Process-to-transfer-a-repo

Actually, no. Those are not the instructions.

[marcoscaceres]

We just need to add a redirect to:

https://github.com/WICG/wicg.github.io

[simoneonofri]

@marcoscaceres thank you! when you are ready, just ping me for the transfer so I can move to w3c orga!

In my understanding, as it is a tentative deliverable, we will vote on it during a call and via e-mail. Next week, FedID WG will look at the deliverables during the CCG call to have the proper info.

[marcoscaceres]

Ok, we also need to change all the wicg links from any document.

[marcoscaceres]

In my understanding, as it is a tentative deliverable, we will vote on it during a call and via e-mail.

yes, "Depending on the incubation progress, interest from multiple implementers, and the consensus of the Group participants, the Group may also produce Recommendation-track specifications for the following document"

So,

1. incubation progress has been great.
2. We have multiple shipping implementations.
3. Yes, we need a CFC from the group.
4. For "produce Recommendation-track specifications for the following document", we should combine the adoption with a CFC to also publish as a FPWD when the repo moves.

[npdoty]

My understanding is that the Working Group hasn't made a decision to adopt yet. I didn't see it on the agenda for the FedID meeting next week yet.

Per the template, I think we should make it clear that the spec doesn't yet include security and privacy considerations, beyond headings to note them as placeholders that need to be addressed. I don't think that's an objection to migrating to working on this in another group -- I'm happy to work on those issues wherever -- but I just think we should be clear about what work has or hasn't been done yet.

[timcappalli]

My understanding is that the Working Group hasn't made a decision to adopt yet.

This is correct. I believe 2025-03-18 is the next opportunity for that discussion.

[marcoscaceres]

That's all fine. All this can happen in parallel regardless.

[timcappalli]

Consensus call went out to the Federated Identity WG this morning: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-fedid-wg/2025Apr/0000.html

[timcappalli]

The Federated Identity Working Group adopted this work on 2025-04-10.