Kristina

don't remove it.

I don't understand how it is underspecified more than others. majority of client_id_schemes need something additional to be defined, not just DID one. like verifier_attestation scheme requires it to be...

@bc-pi I am sorry, what is the biggest problem with using `urn:ietf:params:oauth:`? openid4vp claims to be an extension of oauth, so keep using `urn:ietf:params:oauth:` feels less work in terms of...

@bc-pi why is there no need to register `urn:openid`?

from a name collision perspective, using a registration would be better. if we think no one will ever use these URNs, the better solution is to remove the section that...

superseded by #282

OAuth being framework, I am hesitant to require all issuers to have metadata. I think think discussion in issue openid/OpenID4VCI#82 made it clear that some implementers want to have out...

Can this be closed in favor of openid/OpenID4VCI#392, too? do we want a small PR clarifying that issuers do not have to list all credentials in the issuer metadata (which...

closing in a week unless objections. another option can be to move this issue to HAIP. @paulbastian let us know the preference

there is nothing in the spec that prevents "permissive" approach to our OpenId4VP wallet implementation, right? if so, this can be clarified in 1.1