RFC 0511 - Inconsistent use of property names

[awoie]

propose-credential is the only message that does not use the credential_manifest container object. For consistency reasons, we might want to change the propose-credential example to use the following format instead:

    "filter~attach": [{
        "@id": "b45ca1bc-5b3c-4672-a300-84ddf6fbbaea",
        "mime-type": "application/json",
        "data": {
            "json": {
                "credential_manifest": {
                  "issuer": "did:example:123",
                  "credential": {
                      "name": "Washington State Class A Commercial Driver License",
                      "schema": "ipfs:QmPXME1oRtoT627YKaDPDQ3PwA8tdP9rWuAAweLzqSwAWT"
                  }
              }
            }
        }
    }]

Further, there are some occurrences of presentation-submission and credential-manifest. We should fix them and use presentation_submission and credential_manifest consistently.

[llorllale]

@awoie

propose-credential is the only message that does not use the credential_manifest container object.

It actually is using the CM object. The value of json happens to be the CM object.

I have a weak opposition to this proposal simply because doing so would dilute the intent which is to re-use the CM data structure to express the credential desired by the Holder. This proposal would contain the CM object in an outer data structure into which more attributes could be added... basically, I fail to foresee what the consequences would be if we do so.

Further, there are some occurrences of presentation-submission and credential-manifest. We should fix them and use presentation_submission and credential_manifest consistently.

I think I was influenced by some of the DIDComm fields I saw when I decided to go for the hyphen. We have been inconsistent however... notice both "mime-type" and "attach_id" within the same messages.

I am OK with replacing the hypen to underscores (including the format identifiers).