Kristina

I believe this can be added post 1.0 in a non-breaking manner, if we decide to do so?

With the current spec text, c_nonce becomes the only way to mitigate replay attacks, which is a pretty high barrier for the implementations. Based on Microsoft's implementation, I would support...

WG discussion: - is this 1.1? 1.0 conditional to implementation experience? - options where to return completion_uri: 1. [feels murky] response that contains a credential: credential response or deferred response....

chair hat on. we already marked this stretch goal, but looking at the number of PRs and the timelines, chairs are inclined to do this in 1.1, also because all...

@awoie do you think you would be able to do a PR in VCI explaining relationship between VCI and 23220-3 like you did in VP spec?

ok, so am I correct to understand that 23220-3 is still in flux, so we can't reference it like we referenced 23220-4 in VP? I just looked at the most...

based on the LSP POTENTIAL interop, it looks like, it should be base64url encoded issuerSigned structure that is returned in the cerdential response

we should prioritize this since if we decide to do it, this would be a breaking change

WG discussion - key attestation allows to receive credentials without generating a signature using a public key (PoP), so only one signature by wallet provider. it solves originally raised issue...

WG discussion: - no support / consensus to add this right now - we can do it in 1.1 - by defining a new proof type? - key attestation can...