Skip to content

Conversation

@paulbastian
Copy link
Contributor

@paulbastian paulbastian commented May 22, 2025

Close #275
Supersedes #481

The Format-specific authorization_details only contain examples now. They could as well be removed, or keep them?

@charsleysa
Copy link
Contributor

Just want to reference this comment here so it doesn't get missed #275 (comment)

@tplooker
Copy link
Contributor

Just referencing if this PR is accepted then #481 will need to be closed.

@Sakurann Sakurann added this to the Final 1.0 milestone May 28, 2025
@tplooker
Copy link
Contributor

tplooker commented Jun 8, 2025

Just want to reference this comment here so it doesn't get missed #275 (comment)

As to not be silent on this here, it would appear subsequent comments have clarified that the affected use case could reference the credential configuration instead of the offer thus not eliminating any functionality from the specification.

Copy link
Contributor

@jogu jogu left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Discussed on this morning's WG call and the people there seemed okay with it.

Just in case we're removing something someone does really need I sent a message to the mailing list: https://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-digital-credentials-protocols/Week-of-Mon-20250609/000835.html

@Sakurann Sakurann merged commit d0a2190 into main Jun 12, 2025
2 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Clarification on use of 'format' claim in authorization_details

8 participants