OpenID4VCI
OpenID4VCI copied to clipboard
openid
[OID4VCI] align credential format identifiers with media types
Imported from AB/Connect bitbucket: https://bitbucket.org/openid/connect/issues/1960
Original Reporter: authlete-taka
How about changing the following credential format identifiers:
jwt_vc_jsonjwt_vc_json-ld
to media types like below?
vc+jwtvc+ld+jwt
References:
Likewise, I feel that SD-JWT based VC should be given the format identifier vc+sd+jwt (instead of vc+sd_jwt).
Imported from AB/Connect bitbucket - Original Commenter: authlete-taka
Sorry, regarding SD-JWT VC. “SD-JWT-based Verifiable Credentials with JSON payloads (SD-JWT VC)” defines the media type vc+sd-jwt, and if the intention of sd-jwt is to mean the “combined format” (<JWT>~<Disclosure>~...), sd-jwt should not be changed to sd+jwt.
Imported from AB/Connect bitbucket - Original Commenter: KristinaYasuda
good point. I am in general in support of moving towards using media types like you are suggesting.
Based on the development of SD-JWT-based Verifiable Credentials (SD-JWT VC) (vcstuff.github.io), I think jwt_vc_json 's identifier would be vc+sd-jwt too.
We had a lengthy discussion at the last IETF and we agreed that `+sd-jwt` is more suitable because the point of having +sd-jwt is to clearly differentiate processing rules etc from +jwt.
Imported from AB/Connect bitbucket - Original Commenter: KristinaYasuda
duplicate of #24 .
what would be the media type for ldp_vc? I think media types defined in w3c vc+jwt and vc+ld+jwt were intended to talk about an (unsigned) payload...
we need to discuss this before going to final because depending on if and how we decide to do this, it would be a breaking change
unfortunately, probably too late to introduce such a big breaking change at this point of the specification's lifecycle without a technical merit, even if the proposed solution is indeed cleaner - also given the lack of discussion on this issue. closing in a week, unless objections