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

Verifier compatibility - scope with aliases support for presentation definitions #515

Open
RenardFestif opened this issue Dec 13, 2024 · 0 comments

Comments

@RenardFestif
Copy link

RenardFestif commented Dec 13, 2024

Dear maintainers,
We are currently developing a verifier and working towards compatibility with the IT wallet. While going through the specifications, I noticed some points that could use clarification:

1. Purpose of the scope Parameter
The current documentation suggests the use of the scope parameter alongside the presentation_definitionand an incompatibility with presentation_definition_uri. This raises a question:
What is the purpose of the scope parameter if a presentation_definition is already defined?
It seems redundant, as the presentation_definition appears sufficient for defining the requirements for verifiable presentations.

2. Mapping Between scope and presentation_definition
The documentation does not provide any guidance on how the mapping between scope and presentation_definition should be established. Specifically:

  • Is there any detailed guidance or specification on how to map the scope parameter to the presentation_definition?
    This aspect seems to be outside the scope of the OID4VP specification (reference) but appears to be a critical integration point for compatibility with the IT wallet.

References:
IT Wallet Documentation: Request URI Response
OID4VP Specification: Using Scope Parameter
I would appreciate clarification or additional documentation on these points to ensure alignment with the intended implementation approach.

Thank you for your support and for maintaining this project!

Best regards,
Juba

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

No branches or pull requests

1 participant