Although it's very easy for an issuer to choose between the many options of the spec, implement it and declare full compliance to the ISO, it's virtually impossible for verifiers to implement all possible options in order to read and verify any ISO compliant payload. It will be very hard for verifiers to claim compliance with this ISO, which adds tremendous friction to its adoption.
Points of complexity:
Interface 2 has several options: QR codes, Wi-Fi Aware, NFCs, Direct Bluetooth. Verifiers will rarely implement all 4 options. If they do, they can claim compliance to 4 ISOs.
Interface 3 will not be implemented by any privacy-preserving verifier (which is the majority of verifiers). Interface 3 is an abomination and it should never exist.
Verifiers implementing namespace org.micov.medical.1 and org.micov.attestation.1 will not implement org.micov.fhir.1. FHIR is massively complex. Those implementing the simpler EU-like payloads don't have FHIR engines available. Those that already have FHIR engines available will not support the other 2 because they are not FHIR compliant payloads.
Although it's very easy for an issuer to choose between the many options of the spec, implement it and declare full compliance to the ISO, it's virtually impossible for verifiers to implement all possible options in order to read and verify any ISO compliant payload. It will be very hard for verifiers to claim compliance with this ISO, which adds tremendous friction to its adoption.
Points of complexity:
org.micov.medical.1andorg.micov.attestation.1will not implementorg.micov.fhir.1. FHIR is massively complex. Those implementing the simpler EU-like payloads don't have FHIR engines available. Those that already have FHIR engines available will not support the other 2 because they are not FHIR compliant payloads.