clarify how formats are expressed in OIDC4VP

[Kristina Yasuda]

Suggest we use jwt_vc, jwt_vp and ldp_vc, ldp_vp as opposed to jwtor ldp to be able to express whether the format refers to VP or VC.

reference: https://identity.foundation/presentation-exchange/#claim-format-designations

[Kristina Yasuda]

OIDC4VP already uses only add one sentence that jwt_vc, jwt_vp and ldp_vc, ldp_vp. after current big OIDC4VP PRs are merged, add one sentence that jwtor ldp cannot be used as formats.

[Kristina Yasuda]

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?

[Torsten Lodderstedt]

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.

[Kristina Yasuda]

I revise my comment that the current draft reads well.