Open to add support for new (non-standardized) di_vc and di_vp format?

[TimoGlastra]

We're currently in the process of adopting the new Data Integrity Proofs specification, mainly for work we're doing to make AnonCreds compliant with W3C (using Data Integrity Proofs).

The Data Integrity Proofs spec supersedes the Linked Data Proofs specification, and has some changes in it's requirements, but is overall pretty similar.

One major difference is the usage and recommendation of a general purpose DataIntegrityProof type, with a compaion cryptosuite value.

I've openend a similar issue in the Claim Format Registry repository about how to deal with the ambiguity of DataIntegrityProof type by itself: decentralized-identity/claim-format-registry#8

From the two proposed approaches I feel the most for a new di_vc and di_vp type as the spec is now called like this, and there's some differences between the two. processors will mostly be able to use the ldp_vc and di_vc interchangeably, but there are some subtle differences.

Are you open to implementing this new format, even though it has not been formalized yet? The PEX library is very strict on the formats and thus passing anything that it doesn't support in the format will throw an error, so we can't really build it on top of PEX ourselves (see also #134)

We can also fall back to using di_vc with DataIntegrityProof for now until there is some input of the claim format, but this will make the querying a bit less useful.

[nklomp]

Part of 3.1.0