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

Content of signed_metadata vs REQUIRED fields in unsigned metadata #444

Open
jtalir opened this issue Jan 13, 2025 · 1 comment
Open

Content of signed_metadata vs REQUIRED fields in unsigned metadata #444

jtalir opened this issue Jan 13, 2025 · 1 comment
Milestone

Comments

@jtalir
Copy link

jtalir commented Jan 13, 2025

It is written in signed_metadata description that "If the Credential Issuer wants to enforce use of signed metadata, it omits the respective metadata parameters from the unsigned part of the Credential Issuer metadata". However, there are 3 attributes marked as REQUIRED in unsigned part (credential_issuer, credential_endpoint and credential_configurations_supported) so it is not possible to omit them without potentially breaking some metadata validators.

Maybe solution would be to clarify that these 3 attributes are "REQUIRED if signed_metadata attribute is not present"?

@Sakurann Sakurann added this to the 1.1 milestone Jan 23, 2025
@jtalir
Copy link
Author

jtalir commented Jan 31, 2025

I believe that with relation to #448, if singed_metadata is primary feature for issuer authentication, it should be also clear how to implement it from the beginning. Is it expected that signed_metadata can be the only attribute in metadata json? Would it break something? Or is it a MUST that at least credential_issuer must be present both in signed_metadata and also at top level?

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