[has-PR] [OpenID4VP] Where to include a presentation submission

[Kristina Yasuda]

(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

‌

[David W Chadwick]

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.

[Kristina Yasuda]

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 that Client MUST ignore `presentation_submission` parameter if it is included inside a VP in addition to a `presentation_submission` response parameter.

[David W Chadwick]

+1

[Kristina Yasuda]

PR #278

[Kristina Yasuda]

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.

[Kristina Yasuda]

SIOP aug-18, agreed on the direction

[Kristina Yasuda]

PR #278 merged