[Openid-specs-ab] Issue #1360: Uniform way to specify Formats in Verifiable Credentials and Presentations (openid/connect)

[Thomas Bellebaum]

New issue 1360: Uniform way to specify Formats in Verifiable Credentials and Presentations
https://bitbucket.org/openid/connect/issues/1360/uniform-way-to-specify-formats-in

Thomas Bellebaum:

Upon dynamic client registration, clients will \(in both the Aggegated Claims and Verifiable Presentations drafts\) specify the format they wish to receive the attested claims in. The specification format however looks very different:  
  
Aggregated Claims \(intended among other things for issuing VCs\):

```
claims_signed_response_alg:
Required. JWS alg algorithm JWA REQUIRED for signing Claims Responses
```

\(and some others.\)

Proof types for Non-JWT formats are not mentioned there.

‌

Verifiable Presentations \(intended for presenting VCs within VPs\):

```
"vp_formats": {
  "jwt_vp": {
      "alg": [
        "EdDSA",
        "ES256K"
      ]
  },
  "ldp_vp": {
      "proof_type": [
        "Ed25519Signature2018"
      ]
  }
}
```

The format follows [https://identity.foundation/presentation-exchange/spec/v1.0.0/](https://identity.foundation/presentation-exchange/spec/v1.0.0/) .

These parts of client metadata are trying to achieve very similar goals. I think we should not have two methods within the OIDC ecosystem for them.  
  
I propose to extend upon the VP spec and defining something like “claims\_formats“ for use in the aggregated claims spec.

‌