-
assigned issue to
clarify how formats are expressed in OIDC4VP
Suggest we use jwt_vc
, jwt_vp
and ldp_vc
, ldp_vp
as opposed to jwt
or ldp
to be able to express whether the format refers to VP or VC.
reference: https://identity.foundation/presentation-exchange/#claim-format-designations
Comments (4)
-
reporter -
reporter I am a little confused…
Does vp_formats supposed to communicate only supported VP formats? what is VC of an unsupported format is returned in a VP of a supported format? Does this mean vp_formats should also specify supported VC formats? Or should RP specify format of each requested VC using presentation_definition.input_descriptors.format?
-
I think we need both, formats for VCs and VPs.
Either we follow PE and use a general term like “formats” and distinguish the artifacts using different values jwt_vc vs jwt_vp or we introduce distinct metadata parameters. For pragmatic reasons, I would suggest to follow PE.
-
reporter - changed status to resolved
I revise my comment that the current draft reads well.
- Log in to comment
OIDC4VP already uses only add one sentence that
jwt_vc
,jwt_vp
andldp_vc
,ldp_vp
. after current big OIDC4VP PRs are merged, add one sentence thatjwt
orldp
cannot be used as formats.