Update examples to reference the W3C VCDM v2, Data Integrity, and VC JOSE COSE #297
Conversation
decentralgabe
requested review from
David-Chadwick,
jogu,
selfissued,
Sakurann and
awoie
and removed request for
David-Chadwick
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Overall, LGTM.
Non-blocking feedback... I wonder if the prefix should be "di" instead of "dip", we've never really used "dip" before, we tend to use "di".
/cc @dlongley @davidlehn
|
+1 and I agree that |
Co-authored-by: David I. Lehn <dil@lehn.org>
| @@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ | |||
| "format": { | |||
| "type": "object", | |||
| "patternProperties": { | |||
| "^jwt$|^jwt_vc$|^jwt_vp$": { | |||
| "^jwt$|^jose_vc$|^jose_vp$|^cose_vc$|^cose_vp$|^sdjwt_vc$|^sdjwt_vp$": { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Similar question as above about including sdjwt_vc and sdjwt_vp here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
updating to the VCDM v2 requires selecting a securing mechanism. one of those mechanisms is VC JOSE COSE which defines securing mechanisms for JOSE, COSE, and SD-JWT.
this change adds corresponding format properties for the new data model.
if you have a suggestion on how to break this into 2 PRs I'm open to it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@jogu does @decentralgabe's answer above satisfy you or do you want to request changes? If you're satisfied, can you please approve? Thanks.
|
For a myriad of reasons, I'm unable to make further changes to this PR for the foreseeable future. I would appreciate if someone else could pick it up on my behalf. |
|
As I said on today's DCP call, I'm willing to own this PR while @decentralgabe needs to step away for a bit. |
|
@OR13 had some thoughts related to this https://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-digital-credentials-protocols/Week-of-Mon-20241028/000525.html which seem in dissonance with his apparent approval of the PR 3 weeks ago. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
let's discuss in the issue #5 first how we want to transition from VCDM v1.1 to v.2.0.
I originally opened that issue, but I do not believe we should overwrite v.1.1 text/examples in OID4VP as there are still implementations who use VCDM v1.1 as defined currently.
if we want to support v2.0, we could add a separate section on VCDM 2.0, but we should discuss in a WG first
Fix #5
Spec references:
There may be some small errors in the examples but I hope this enough to get started.