Closed OR13 closed 1 year ago
Shouldn't this follow the pattern we use for securing VCs? With a base media type for VPs.
The issue was discussed in a meeting on 2023-06-07
@jandrieu as we discussed on the call, this approach does align with the approach we took previously:
application/vp+ld+jwt
@jandrieu as we discussed on the call, this approach does align with the approach we took previously:
application/vp+ld+jwt
Interesting.
I was expecting a base media type, e.g., application/vp+ld+json
which would then be secured by JWT, DI, etc. which show up as 'application/vp+jwt', but I'm not seeing any reference to a base media type.
I do see that application/vp+ld+json is mentioned in the other PR you mention https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1144, but application/vc+jwt
and application/vp+ld+jwt
do not use the same pattern.
If it were using the same pattern, I would expect application/vp-jwt
which secures application/vp-ld-json
just as application/vc+jwt
secures application/vc+ld+json
@jandrieu i don't think your suggestion would be following the convention we have so far.
We defined a JSON media type for VCs:
vc+ld+json we use vc+ld+jwt to secure it.
We define a JSON media type for VPs:
vp+ld+json we use vp+ld+jwt to secure it.
We don't use "-" because we are trying to leverage the multiple suffixes draft, that we hope will be an RFC one day.
+json+jwt would be redundant.
Hopefully the examples in the other PRs will make this clearer.
Preview | Diff