Kristina

I think we can add this feature in a non-breaking manner in 1.1 if needed?

in the future, yes, absolutely. but not yet in my opinion. we should wait for the W3C API work to be moved to the WG at least.

super weird that it still points to VCI. it should point to VP Annex B and I thought we have done a PR fixing it, but apparently not. If you...

who could do a PR?

should take into account requirement [VCR_09 in ARF](https://eu-digital-identity-wallet.github.io/eudi-doc-architecture-and-reference-framework/1.4.0/annexes/annex-2/annex-2-high-level-requirements/#a237-topic-7-attestation-validity-checks-and-revocation): "The Commission SHALL create or reference technical specifications providing all necessary details for PID Providers, Attestation Providers, and Wallet Providers to implement...

what about key attestation? do we need to say that when key attestation as defined in annex D of VCI is used, status claim and ietf draft are mandatory?

WG discussion, add a non-normative note that points to 18013-5 rev2 draft that includes revocation mechanism for mdocs.

@martijnharing are you planing to do PR for this one?

This has been discussed in DCP WG on Apr-22nd. Minutes: https://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-digital-credentials-protocols/Week-of-Mon-20250421/000756.html The following guidance was provided by NIST on that call: - NIST SP 800 does not strictly require APU/APV...

we probably need to add a paragraph clarifying the relationship between sd-jwt vc and VCI issuer metadata before doing 1.0 final