Add one more option to invalid_request if none of the valid options is provided #101
Conversation
…on has to be provided
awoie
requested review from
danielfett,
jogu,
Sakurann and
selfissued
and removed request for
danielfett
awoie
changed the title
awoie
changed the title
| @@ -659,7 +659,7 @@ The error response follows the rules as defined in [@!RFC6749], with the followi | |||
|
|
|||
| `invalid_request`: | |||
|
|
|||
| - The request contains more than one out of the following three options to communicate a requested Credential: a `presentation_definition` parameter, a `presentation_definition_uri` parameter, or a scope value representing a Presentation Definition. | |||
| - The request contains none or more than one out of the following three options to communicate a requested Credential: a `presentation_definition` parameter, a `presentation_definition_uri` parameter, or a scope value representing a Presentation Definition. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We may want to make it clearer that a wallet isn't required to return an error in the 'none of' case (but is required to return an error in the "more than one" case). [As the wallet may support other protocols, e.g. SIOPv2]
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In the context of OpenID4VP it is required to provide one of the options, otherwise it is not an OpenID4VP request. Especially, I would expect an error if response_type is vp_token. I agree that for response_type code, the situation is different. If the request is also a SIOPv2 request using vp_token id_token, then I would still expect an error.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Perhaps we should think about a dedicated scope value that clearly defines that the request is an OpenID4VP request? This would be only required for response_type code though.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I updated the language in the PR. Would you agree with the new language @jogu ?
The paragraph is about raising an error in case none or more than one option is provided. I agree that there is an exception for response_type code. That is why I added the "The request uses the |
Does this now make sense? @Sakurann |
Co-authored-by: Kristina <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Joseph Heenan <[email protected]>
This PR does:
This PR is non-breaking since we already have the requirement that one of the options must be present.