Should the parameter `wallet_issuer` be changed to `wallet_provider`?

[peppelinux]

          WDYT about?

wallet_issuer -> wallet_provider

it seems more closer to the current language

Originally posted by @peppelinux in https://github.com/openid/OpenID4VCI/pull/98#discussion_r1382582945

[Sakurann]

I think _issuer was originally used because it was meant for as an equivalent of OAuth 2.0 issuer parameter, just like credential_issuer. but I agree that wallet_issuer as a whole is probably not a term that is widely used or understood and wallet_provider is probably better. @pmhsfelix, @tlodderstedt ?

[peppelinux]

In the PR https://github.com/openid/OpenID4VCI/pull/142 I've proposed the parameter name wallet_id to uniquely identifying a wallet instance.

I correct myself by saying that the term Wallet Provider has a mean different from the Wallet instance.

The name wallet_id is more flexible and it means exactly a wallet identifier. This can be used for doing the discovery process defined in SIOPv2. Nothing prevents a wallet instance to provide its wallet provider unique identifier in the wallet_id value, if the wallet capabilities and endpoints are provided in the cloud by the wallet provider.

[selfissued]

There's also a discussion in #142 about whether we need a wallet identifier at all distinct from the Client ID.