Skip to content
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.

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

Define how OID4VP parameters are carried over to VPs normatively #171

Closed
awoie opened this issue May 14, 2024 · 3 comments · Fixed by #404
Closed

Define how OID4VP parameters are carried over to VPs normatively #171

awoie opened this issue May 14, 2024 · 3 comments · Fixed by #404

Comments

@awoie
Copy link
Contributor

awoie commented May 14, 2024

There is an implicit understanding that parameters such as nonce, client_id and client_id_scheme are used in VPs but we don't have explicit language how this is done for specific format identifiers.

I propose to add language that define that profiles must describe how. For profiles defined by OID4VP, this language should be added to the credential format sections.

@awoie
Copy link
Contributor Author

awoie commented May 16, 2024

I missed the notes in the credential profiles section that says how this is done. I guess I got confused because the text is below an example and included in a note. I'm wondering whether normative language would make sense similar to what we did for SD-JWT VC and verifier metadata: https://openid.github.io/OpenID4VP/openid-4-verifiable-presentations-wg-draft.html#appendix-A.4.2. It would certainly help interoperability. Thoughts?

@awoie awoie changed the title Define how OID4VP parameters are carried over to VPs Define how OID4VP parameters are carried over to VPs normatively May 16, 2024
@Sakurann
Copy link
Collaborator

what kind of language are you thinking for other credential formats, ie mdocs and vcdm?

@jogu
Copy link
Collaborator

jogu commented Dec 2, 2024

For SD-JWT, this is hopefully fixed by #357

Other credential formats still need to be addressed.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants