Inconsistent examples for jwt_vp

[jogu]

There are various things that look like inconsistencies in the jwt_vp examples, e.g.:

The VP spec only defines jwt_vp_json, so jwt_vp there should probably be changed to jwt_vp_json.

We have some presentation examples that use "format": "jwt_vp" and some with "format": "jwt_vp_json". I am not sure which should be used but I presume we should be consistent. jwt_vp_json does not exist in the PE registry: https://identity.foundation/claim-format-registry/#registry

[Sakurann]

for the vcdm v1.1, for the VCs there is a distinction between jwt_vc_json and jwt_vc_json-ld (which is defined in VCI, but not VP), but for VP I think that distinction matters less, so jwt_vp might be ok.

and yes, someone needs to take an action and register identifiers defined in Openid4vc in that DIF registry..

[jogu]

@Sakurann

for the vcdm v1.1, for the VCs there is a distinction between jwt_vc_json and jwt_vc_json-ld (which is defined in VCI, but not VP), but for VP I think that distinction matters less, so jwt_vp might be ok.

To clarify, are you suggesting we change the type that VP defines from jwt_vc_json to jwt_vc here:

https://github.com/openid/OpenID4VP/blob/main/openid-4-verifiable-presentations-1_0.md?plain=1#L1375

(I was presuming we wouldn't want to make a breaking change like that and would just fix the examples...)

[Sakurann]

I was suggeting to use jwt_vc_json and jwt_vp, but you are right, spec text itself defines jwt_vp_json, so I did a PR #145 to stick to jwt_vp_everywhere