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

Optionality of mdoc specific DCQL fields #413

Open
martijnharing opened this issue Feb 6, 2025 · 2 comments
Open

Optionality of mdoc specific DCQL fields #413

martijnharing opened this issue Feb 6, 2025 · 2 comments

Comments

@martijnharing
Copy link
Contributor

Section B.3.1 defines the doctype_value and intent_to_retain fields. In the ISO/IEC 18013-5 specification, both of these fields are mandatory. Unless there is a strong reason to not have the same requirements, these should be mandatory when an mdoc is requested when using OpenID.

@Sakurann
Copy link
Collaborator

there was a pretty strong pushback mandating intent_to_retain in openid4vp when we introduced the mechanism. I think this issue belongs in HAIP, where we could discuss making both mandatory with less resistance?

@martijnharing
Copy link
Contributor Author

Whenever possible we should guarantee interoperability on the OpenID4VP layer, I can understand some of the concerns with mandating the intent_to_retain field, but I don't see the same opposition for the doctype field, especially because the behavior for it not being present is undefined. Would there be any objection to at least mandate the doctype field in the OpenID4VP specification?

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

2 participants