Closed joelposti closed 4 months ago
As I read it, Authorization Request in OpenID4VP does not mandate client_metadata
or client_metadata_uri
, which are actually used to communicate the data. Therefore the rules are meant to be: You may chose to transfer Verifier Metadata and if you do so, you MUST send vp_formats
.
However, you are right, the text in HAIP should say "MUST".
However, it doesn't matter, because the SD-JWT VC specific text will move out of HAIP, as it has been moved over to OpenID4VCI directly: https://github.com/openid/oid4vc-haip-sd-jwt-vc/pull/96
Thank you for your response!
However, it doesn't matter, because the SD-JWT VC specific text will move out of HAIP, as it has been moved over to OpenID4VCI directly: #96
What about sections 7.2.7. Verifier Metadata and 7.2.8. Presentation Definition? Surely they have been moved somewhere else since those sections are about presentation?
resolved by #96, which also removed section 7.2.7 and 7.2.8 from -00 from HAIP and refers to VCI.
OID4VP version 20 says in section 5.1. presentation_definition Parameter
and in section 9.1. Additional Verifier Metadata Parameters
HAIP version 00, on the other hand, says in section 7.2.7. Verifier Metadata.
Why is HAIP looser regarding
vp_formats
than OID4VP? What is the rationale behind this?I also have questions regarding
vp_formats.vc+sd-jwt.sd-jwt_alg_values
andvp_formats.vc+sd-jwt.kb-jwt_alg_values
. Why are they defined as optional in the same HAIP section 7.2.7. Verifier Metadata:I think the optionality of vp_formats, vp_formats.vc+sd-jwt.sd-jwt_alg_values and vp_formats.vc+sd-jwt.kb-jwt_alg_values increases complexity in the wallet's end.