Kristina

> We shouldn't do anything generally for mdoc, it would be bad to reference the 18013-5 table for mdoc in general. why?

clarification: - clarification: for HAIP, it is more important to have MTI algs for the wallet as opposed to the RP/issuer (unlike 18013-5 which is offline use-case). mainly for credential...

option 1: editors/chairs suggestion (perspective of wallet): - leave it open what issuers supports - leave it open what verifiers support - assumption is that verifiers can in advance determine...

labeling this as 1.0 because if we decide one way or the other in the spec, it better be done in 1.0 to prevent the situation where 1.1 implementation is...

currently, HAIP mandates scopes https://openid.github.io/oid4vc-haip/openid4vc-high-assurance-interoperability-profile-wg-draft.html#section-4.1-1.2 HAIP is probably a better place to make authorization_details mandatory. and we should probably keep both optional in VCI?

~~closing in a week unless objections~~ moved to HAIP instead

duplicate of #93. but copying here too: > Section 4.2 states: > > > MUST use the scope parameter to communicate credential type(s) to be issued. The scope value MUST...

wg discussion. ok to keep only scopes for now

it looks like implementers are using both, suggest we change to the following > The wallet MUST support both the JWT proof type and attestation proof type. The Credential Issuer...

as discussed in #32, we should discuss if we want to mandate any other JWT header parameter (jwk, x5c, trust_chain, in addition to key_attestation)