Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

fix!: credential_definition.type is a single value #85

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 1, 2023

Conversation

peppelinux
Copy link
Member

@peppelinux peppelinux commented Jul 30, 2023

There's a small deviation from the sd-jwt vc spec, given by the authorization details example that uses the parameter type as an array and not as literal string.

when we have defined it we assumed that the type should be multivalued, this have been consolidated now in the sd-jwt vc using the single valued approach.

See also here.

@peppelinux peppelinux added issuance standardization Topics related to the standardization process in IETF/OIDF labels Jul 30, 2023
@@ -137,7 +137,7 @@ The JWS payload of the request object is represented below:
"type":"openid_credential",
"format": "vc+sd-jwt",
"credential_definition": {
"type": ["PersonIdentificationData"]
"type": "PersonIdentificationData"
}
}
],
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@fmarino-ipzs

authorization_details is an array, and each credential authorization is a json object, then requesting multiple credentials is possible by specifing type, format and credential definition.

fair enough I'd say

@peppelinux peppelinux requested a review from balanza July 31, 2023 20:18
Copy link
Contributor

@balanza balanza left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

a small deviation from the sd-jwt vc spec

Given this deviation, should we briefly explain this choice with a small paragraph in the docs? That may be helpful for readers to reckon we are still in the realm of sd-jwt, and we took a motivated choice.


See also here.

That PR is still open and the discussion is still ongoing. Should we wait before assuming it right?

@peppelinux
Copy link
Member Author

@balanza "that deviation" is resolved in this PR

it was that singlevalued vs the multivalued, as it was before

Copy link
Member

@ruphy ruphy left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

Copy link
Collaborator

@grausof grausof left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@peppelinux peppelinux merged commit 12cab61 into versione-corrente Sep 1, 2023
7 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
issuance standardization Topics related to the standardization process in IETF/OIDF
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants