Closed Sakurann closed 2 years ago
I believe that this alternative violates the definition of SD-JWT in section 4.1. In particular, I uderestand that this alternative is not of the form
SD-JWT-DOC = (METADATA, SD-CLAIMS)
yes, the idea was to add a sentence in the SD-JWT specification that profiles of the specification MAY define other places to include sd_digests
.
Just a thought: Should this issue turn in to an extension spec vc-sd-jwt
to separate out the responsibility of mapping something foundational (sd-jwt) to something intermediate (vc datamodel)?
PR #162
This has been superseded by the changes we made in PR #174. An example for a W3C VC is contained in the appendix.
Current proposal is here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-fett-oauth-selective-disclosure-jwt-01#appendix-A.3 Alternative proposal is here: https://github.com/oauthstuff/draft-selective-disclosure-jwt/issues/103#issuecomment-1175572062
Guess yet another alternative would be: