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

Relax language on PE #114

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 6, 2024
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion openid-4-verifiable-presentations-1_0.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -234,7 +234,7 @@ The Authorization Request follows the definition given in [@!RFC6749] taking int

The Verifier may send an Authorization Request as Request Object by value or by reference as defined in JWT-Secured Authorization Request (JAR) [@RFC9101].

The Verifier articulates requirements of the Credential(s) that are requested using `presentation_definition` and `presentation_definition_uri` parameters that contain a Presentation Definition JSON object as defined in Section 5 of [@!DIF.PresentationExchange]. Wallet implementations MUST process Presentation Definition JSON object and select candidate Verifiable Credential(s) using the evaluation process described in Section 8 of [@!DIF.PresentationExchange].
The Verifier articulates requirements of the Credential(s) that are requested using `presentation_definition` and `presentation_definition_uri` parameters that contain a Presentation Definition JSON object as defined in Section 5 of [@!DIF.PresentationExchange]. Wallet implementations MUST process Presentation Definition JSON object and select candidate Verifiable Credential(s) using the evaluation process described in Section 8 of [@!DIF.PresentationExchange] unless implementing only a credential profile that provides rules on how to evaluate and process [@!DIF.PresentationExchange].
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

MUST should now be relaxed to SHOULD, because the additional text says when the MUST does not apply

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

MUST should now be relaxed to SHOULD, because the additional text says when the MUST does not apply

The fact that it's a conditional must doesn't mean it needs to be downgraded to only a recommendation ('should') when the exception doesn't apply. I believe it should stay as a MUST.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

+1 to Joseph. the goal here is to say that when there is no credential profile, use as defined in PE, if there is (like 18013-7), use rules defined there.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@David-Chadwick does that work for you?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes sure


The Verifier communicates a Client Identifier Scheme that indicate how the Wallet is supposed to interpret the Client Identifier and associated data in the process of Client identification, authentication, and authorization using `client_id_scheme` parameter. This parameter enables deployments of this specification to use different mechanisms to obtain and validate Client metadata beyond the scope of [@!RFC6749]. A certain Client Identifier Scheme MAY require the Verifier to sign the Authorization Request as means of authentication and/or pass additional parameters and require the Wallet to process them.

Expand Down
Loading