Skip to content

fix: align JWT fields according to RFC and VC spec - #11

Open
strumswell wants to merge 4 commits into
mainfrom
jwt-changes
Open

fix: align JWT fields according to RFC and VC spec#11
strumswell wants to merge 4 commits into
mainfrom
jwt-changes

Conversation

@strumswell

@strumswell strumswell commented Aug 7, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown

This PR aligns the JWT fields in accordance to RFC7519 and the W3C VC spec.
Screenshot 2023-08-07 at 15 11 58

Signed-off-by: Philipp Bolte <philipp.bolte@spherity.com>
@strumswell strumswell self-assigned this Aug 7, 2023
Philipp Bolte added 2 commits August 7, 2023 12:54
Signed-off-by: Philipp Bolte <philipp.bolte@spherity.com>
Signed-off-by: Philipp Bolte <philipp.bolte@spherity.com>
@bluesteens

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

work here addresses parts of P&A ticket Open-Credentialing-Initiative/Digital-Wallet-Conformance-Criteria#58

Comment thread specification/draft/index.html Outdated
@@ -905,89 +905,95 @@ <h3>Verifiable Presentation of DSCSA Stakeholder Credentials</h3>
<p>
Verifiable Presentations may be used to combine and present credentials. They can be packaged in such a way that

@bluesteens bluesteens Aug 9, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Verifiable Presentations may be used to combine and present credentials. They can be packaged...

I don't quite get the purpose of the intro. The "may" & "can" are non-normative. So, OCI doesn't seem to state that VP are to be used (is there an alternative?) but then goes on to define VP structure and errors. Or have I missed a clear statement of the requirement elsewhere?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I have not looked at the other parts of this spec in detail but I agree with you.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I just exchanged the may with are

Comment thread specification/draft/index.html Outdated
Comment thread specification/draft/index.html Outdated
Comment thread specification/draft/index.html Outdated
Signed-off-by: Philipp Bolte <philipp.bolte@spherity.com>
Comment thread specification/draft/index.html
Contains the corrUUID for which the VP has been generated for.
A digital wallet SHALL include a `verifiableCredential` field in the `vp` object. This field contains
the embedded ATP Verifiable Credential.
</td>

@bluesteens bluesteens Aug 9, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

so, did we lose a field that contains the corrUUID? not needed anymore?

re spelling:

verifiableCredential field

pls check capitalisation. seems to be a mix here and further above.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I moved it up. That's the nonce field you probably mean. It is verifiableCredential because that's how it's spelled in the JSON object. Camel case.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

ah, that's the "random value" you refer to further up. will it be clear enough for wallets to understand that they need to place the corrUUID in nonce or should we be explicit?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

VC schema: clarify optionality of parameters

2 participants