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

[AS] wallet_issuer and user_hint requires accurate explaination about their scopes and usefulness #145

Open
peppelinux opened this issue Dec 11, 2023 · 6 comments

Comments

@peppelinux
Copy link
Member

My colleagues and I never really understood the parameters wallet_issuer and user_hint and this PR doesn't solve that either. I think the specification is missing text on this, but unsure if this should be a target of this PR

Originally posted by @paulbastian in #142 (comment)

@tplooker
Copy link
Contributor

I also don't believe we need yet another identifier for a wallet, especially if it is about identifying the wallet provider towards the credential issuer, because the credential issuer has the wallets client ID.

@peppelinux
Copy link
Member Author

@tplooker my PR goes in this direction, where wallet_issuer is renamed to wallet_id

#142 (comment)

@selfissued
Copy link
Member

This seems related to the discussion about whether to have a wallet identifier at all that is distinct from its Client ID. See issue #142.

@Sakurann
Copy link
Collaborator

I think both parameters were meant to facilitate using OID4VP during OID4VCI to obtain additional VCs from the user to authenticate the user. However, it is currently not very clear how those parameters gets passed from issuance flow to the presentation flow. might also be related to #20

@Sakurann
Copy link
Collaborator

from @jogu

https://openid.github.io/OpenID4VCI/openid-4-verifiable-credential-issuance-wg-draft.html#name-dynamic-credential-request contains:

Note to the editors: We need to sort out the Credential Issuer's client_id with the Wallet and potentially add an example with wallet_issuer and user_hint.

We should fix/remove this.

@jogu jogu added this to the Final 1.0 milestone Dec 19, 2024
@jogu
Copy link
Contributor

jogu commented Dec 19, 2024

Thanks Kristina! Tagging onto the 1.0 milestone then as we should at a minimum remove that note before 1.0 :)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants