"Verifiable Credentials" causes people to believe OID4VC supports W3C VCs only

[Torsten Lodderstedt]

just got that feedback again, I think we should consider to tweak the names of the spec. In this conversation, it was suggested to drop “Verifiable”.

[Kristina Yasuda]

+1

OpenID4EAA?

[Sam Goto]

Yeah, +1, I get this feedback often too: the unintended association with W3C VCs only, rather than being format agnostic.

Other suggestions that occur to me (feel free to ignore):

• OpenID 4 Wallets
• OpenID 4 Holders
• OpenID 4 Identity Credentials

FWIW, along with the naming, I’d also suggest trying to go out of the way to make the format agnostic design clear in the spec (e.g. language, diagrams and, most importantly, examples).

[Kristina Yasuda]

Would you have a suggestions how to make examples more credential format agnostic? We can use different credential formats in different parts of the spec, but I worry that might make it hard to read, and not using any credential format might not illustrate the concept well enough. that’s why we have kept examples with various credential formats in the annex - maybe we should point to them earlier in the spec text

‌

[Sam Goto]

There are many ways to go about this, so just my 2cs, but one way is to over-correct: use an mdoc request in your first few examples, to get this point out of the way up front (rather than in an ANNEX).

Your very first example is a ldp_vc and your second example is a W3C VC. Maybe if you started with the request for an mdoc, it would be immediately clear to the readers that the OIDC4VP spec is really agnostic to format (since, as you noticed, it seems like readers have an incorrect impression that it has an inclination to W3C VCs).

[Sam Goto]

Yeah, agreed that spec readability and providing the intention can be sometimes at odds, so I think you are in the best position to choose a good balance here.

[David Luna]

We’ve heard and used “wallet-based credentials”, if OID4WBC isn’t too much of a mouthful. We have also struggled with the “W3C VC vs vc” issue even internally, so agree to trying to get away from those letters.

‌

not sure how reading a spec that is changing credential formats throughout would sit, for my 2c. prefer the annex approach on that.

[Daniel Fett]

Just “OpenID Credential Issuance”?

[Kristina Yasuda]

I opened openid / connect / issues / #1919 - change examples in the main body to mdoc credential format. — Bitbucket to track changing examples in the main body to mdocs (I personally think it is a good idea)

[Kristina Yasuda]

Though I have not used it before, as a first thought, I like the term wallet-based credential. Wallet being in the middle of the Issuer and the Holder is a notable difference from federation based flows. and I think as much as many consider “wallet“ an overloaded term, I think we made a lot of progress clarifying what it is. and we can use OID4WC, OID4WP and OID4WI? :D (wallet-based credentials/presentation/issuance)

[Sam Goto]

Totally bike shedding at this point, but another thought occurred to me in case you could use more ideas: OIDP (present) and OIDI (issue) to go along with OIDC (connect).

[David Luna]

we can use OID4WC, OID4WP and OID4WI? :D (wallet-based credentials/presentation/issuance)

I like these a lot, but understand if spec renames are not a priority :-)

[Kristina Yasuda]

based on the discussion we had when chartering a new WG, looks like it was the term Digital Credentials that was widely accepted. So I think it would be OID4DC, OID4DCI and OID4DCP if we would like to change the spec names too.

[Mark Haine]

Migrated to GitHub

https://github.com/openid/OpenID4VCI