Make presentation submission optional

[David W Chadwick]

Presentation Submission should be optional. The RP sends its VC requirements to the SIOP, and the SIOP responds with a VP. The RP is perfectly capable of determining whether the VP matches its requirements. The SIOP may help the RP by returning Presentation Submission as a hint, but it should only be treated as a hint i.e. if it is missing, or if it is wrong, it should not be a reason for the RP to reject the VP.

[Kristina Yasuda]

I believe we have a WG consensus that presentation_submission is required in the response.

[David W Chadwick]

This has been discussed extensively in DIF PE and the majority agree that it should be present, except for the case where only one VC is being requested. In this case the PS is not needed because it is obvious to the RP that the returned VP matches the one and only input descriptor.

[Kristina Yasuda]

We have agreed to make presentation_submission a requirement for interoperability purposes. However, the wallet has a choice where to include a presentation_submission: in the VP, or outside it. i.e. presentation_submission is conditional, but not optional

[Kristina Yasuda]

superseded by Issue #1518