Open peppelinux opened 10 months ago
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 ?
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.
There's also a discussion in #142 about whether we need a wallet identifier at all distinct from the Client ID.
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_