RFC 0809 - VCDI Credential offer request alternate proposal #828
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Signed-off-by: Patrick St-Louis <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Patrick St-Louis <[email protected]>
PatStLouis
changed the title
|
Discussed 2024. Hard to merge given the changes, but could be useful in a note on the RFC. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I'd like to suggest a re-alignment with the vc-api approach for the credential offer attachment. I'm not convinced the suggested change provides sufficient improvements and the rational aligns with the direction of the vc-api. The Credential Offer Exceptions section is in line with the recent discussions on the vc-api calls.
This change seems to get rid of a dedicated options field and put all options at the root layer of the request.
The JSON-LD attachment dates from 2021 and the vc-api specification has changed since then.
I have a few questions:
binding_requiredbool? Could it not be assumed as required if there is abinding_methodpresent? Is there a scenario where the binding isn't required but a method is provided?@TimoGlastra