remove SIOP v2 from HAIP?

[Sakurann]

No description provided.

[paulbastian]

I think its a good idea to do so for now.

[c2bo]

Yes, agreed for the time being 👍

[selfissued]

This issue could use more context. For instance:

• Why is SIOP currently required in HAIP?
• What capabilities would we lose by removing it?
• What replacements are proposed for the capabilities we would lose (if any)?
• Who is currently using SIOP with HAIP and what are they using it for?

Given that this appears to be a breaking change, it seems to me that we should understand the answers to those questions (and possibly more I hadn't thought of) before making this significant change. Thanks.

[peppelinux]

even if siopv2 was considered the best option for pseudonyms, in particular for its flexibility, we have seen how it was suddenly replaced by webauthn in the eidas implementing acts.

however there might be two use cases where siopv2 can still represent an interesting solution, that migth be further explored regarding the wallet2wallet flow:

• credential sharing
• delegation
• power of attourney

unless these use cases will not be developed I would suggest to keep siopv2 in the HAIP