Telefónica's proposal was to try to focus now in a v0.2.0 profile version including existing agreements and required clarifications on top of them. And complete this in PR #121 using DT's PR as a reference. TEF PR could be closed (or put in draft for the record). And then non previously discussed topics (like us DPoP, etc...) or mid-term solutions pending to be agreed (basically the purpose one) to be discussed in dedicated issues and considered for a next OIDC profile version (v0.3.0). We said that discussions like the purpose one can take a long time (like it happens in the past for for v0.1.0 agreement) and it does not make sense to block current PR until all these discussions are finished.

Identity and Consent Management meeting

...

Axel said that we are having good discussions and comments on #121. There is good progress. Some topics should be tackled in their own issues referencing #121. Our work should concentrat concentrate on one profile and TEF agreed that the most support seems to be for the DT proposal. Guido García agreed to concentrate our efforts on one PR and suggested to close #113 but Axel suggested to maybe put it in Draft-mode.

Guido Garcia's proposed focussing now on a v0.2.0 profile version including existing agreements and required clarifications on top of them. And complete this in PR #121 using DT's PR as a reference. TEF PR could be closed (or put in draft for the record). And then non previously discussed topics (like us DPoP, etc...) or mid-term solutions pending to be agreed (basically the purpose one) to be discussed in dedicated issues and considered for a next OIDC profile version (v0.3.0). TEF said that discussions like the purpose one can take a long time (like it happens in the past for for v0.1.0 agreement) and it does not make sense to block current PR until all these discussions are finished.

The group agreed that topics in #121 that lead to longer discussion should be discussed in their own issue. Axel mentioned that Shilpa Former user (Deleted) already created some issues. TEF mentioned the new ideas regarding login_hint and aud clarifications as potential new issues. New topic should move to new issues. TEF: purpose is a non-trivial issue. Also: pairwise identifiers and new ideas on login_hint Move forward with the DT profile. Merge into a 0.2 version, and tackle open issues in the 0.3 version.  

TEF proposed to use the label 0.2 on issues that we seem likely to make it into the 0.2 version of the profile. TEF said that that purpose, offline access and pairwise identifiers should be removed from #121 to make it easier to agree on the profile and close the PR. The Then tackle these open issues in the next version. Shilpa  Shilpa said that she wants a DT internal discussion first. Axel said that he thinks that offline access can make it into the current version because Jesús seems to be OK with the proposed text when authorization code flow is concerned and "only" CIBA-related text for offline access is missing.Proposal from TEF create a 0.3 version of the profile and work on integrating 0.3 issues into that. No reaction to that proposal. (Axel thought that this might lead to merge conflicts if we do this too soon, but discussion moved on to other topics)

Conclusion: move long discussions into their own issues, mark those issues with 0.2 if they go in this version, mark them as 0.3 if they go into the next version. DT internal discussion on removing the purpose, offline access and pairwise identifiers.

...