- changed milestone to Implementer's Draft
[has-PR] [OpenID4VP] Where to include a presentation submission
(Discussed during June 2 SIOP special call) Currently there are two places where presentation_submission
can be included in OpenID4VP spec - as a separate response parameter or inside a VP. I believe it should be mandatory to include presentation_submission
as a response parameter and ignore presentation_submission
even if it is present inside the VP.
- Because we are accommodating binary credential formats like mDL that cannot include
presentation_submission
i - and because the reason we originally enabled
presentation_submission
inside a VP because there are libraries that automatically include it inside a VP
Comments (9)
-
reporter -
I agree that we should make it mandatory to include it as a response parameter and ignore it inside the VP. My rationale is that the RP has to process the response parameter first, so whilst doing this it can process the presentation_submission and thereby know where to find the VCs that it requires.
-
reporter I would be in favor of keeping only the option of sending
presentation_submission
as a separate parameter and removing an option to include it inside a VP. If some libraries automatically include submission inside a VP, that’s fine, we could add guidance that thatClient MUST ignore `presentation_submission` parameter if it is included inside a VP in addition to a `presentation_submission` response parameter.
-
+1
-
reporter -
reporter - changed title to [has-PR] [OpenID4VP] Where to include a presentation submission
-
reporter confirmed with Avast, one of the owners of the “libraries that automatically include it inside a VP” (DIDComm libraries) that this is not a blocker and they agree with this change.
-
reporter - changed status to open
SIOP aug-18, agreed on the direction
-
reporter - changed status to resolved
PR #278 merged
- Log in to comment