-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 7
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Why is HAIP looser regarding Verifier vp_formats than OID4VP? #100
Comments
As I read it, Authorization Request in OpenID4VP does not mandate However, you are right, the text in HAIP should say "MUST". However, it doesn't matter, because the SD-JWT VC specific text will move out of HAIP, as it has been moved over to OpenID4VCI directly: #96 |
Thank you for your response!
What about sections 7.2.7. Verifier Metadata and 7.2.8. Presentation Definition? Surely they have been moved somewhere else since those sections are about presentation? |
resolved by #96, which also removed section 7.2.7 and 7.2.8 from -00 from HAIP and refers to VCI. |
OID4VP version 20 says in section 5.1. presentation_definition Parameter
and in section 9.1. Additional Verifier Metadata Parameters
HAIP version 00, on the other hand, says in section 7.2.7. Verifier Metadata.
Why is HAIP looser regarding
vp_formats
than OID4VP? What is the rationale behind this?I also have questions regarding
vp_formats.vc+sd-jwt.sd-jwt_alg_values
andvp_formats.vc+sd-jwt.kb-jwt_alg_values
. Why are they defined as optional in the same HAIP section 7.2.7. Verifier Metadata:I think the optionality of vp_formats, vp_formats.vc+sd-jwt.sd-jwt_alg_values and vp_formats.vc+sd-jwt.kb-jwt_alg_values increases complexity in the wallet's end.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: