add compatibility note about pre-final specifications

[Sakurann]

Multiple non-final specifications are referenced in HAIP. we should add a note about their versions.

Precedent in VP and VCI:

• VP: https://openid.github.io/OpenID4VP/openid-4-verifiable-presentations-wg-draft.html#section-13.4
• VCI: https://openid.github.io/OpenID4VCI/openid-4-verifiable-credential-issuance-wg-draft.html#section-14.7

related issues:
openid/OpenID4VCI#456
openid/OpenID4VP#409

[jogu]

Which specifications are mentioned only in HAIP?

e.g. I'm not sure if HAIP should pin a version of token status list, as VCI already has. Or at least if it does it should be the same version, or they should be normatively equivalent, or we should make clear the version specified in HAIP one takes priority?

[babisRoutis]

I think that there should be a reference at least for SD-JWT-VC.

VP v1 points to SD-JWT-VC d9
VCI v1 points to SD-JWT-VC d11
HAIP d5 points to d11, as well

Thus there is a difference already between VP and VCI and in addition we have SD-JWT-VC d12 which removes JSON Schema from type definitions (This could be consider a breaking change).

I think HAIP should reference d12 of SD-JWT-VC

[jogu]

Well I guess the two obvious options are:

1. We change HAIP to reference SD-JWT VC 10 (as per VP) or 11 (as per VCI) to at least not make the problem worse
2. We make clear that when you're using haip you use 14 (or whatever is current when we publish HAIP) and that overrides the VCI/VP requirement

The locale / lang parameter name change is a particular issue in SD-JWT VC, but we need to check on other changes/specs.

[jogu]

Discussed on today's APAC call: Preference for option '2' as that might align with SD-JWT VC final.

[babisRoutis]

Hi @jogu

1. We change HAIP to reference SD-JWT VC 10 (as per VP) or 11 (as per VCI) to at least not make the problem worse
2. We make clear that when you're using haip you use 14 (or whatever is current when we publish HAIP) and that overrides the VCI/VP requirement

Discussed on today's APAC call: Preference for option '2' as that might align with SD-JWT VC final.

Reading the above text I get the impression that HAIP will require SD-JWT-VC draft 14 .

But in the MoM email of DCWG of 20 Nov there is the following:

SD-JWT VC Version Alignment:

• Discussion on aligning referenced specification versions between OpenID4VP
  and OpenID4VCI. Working group agreed to adopt Option 2: HAIP will
  reference the later versions used in VCI specifications. This applies to
  both SD-JWT VC and status list specifications. Joseph Heenan noted APAC
  call also favored option 2.

which is SD-JWT-VC draft 11, for OpenId4VCI v1.

Can you please clarify ?

[Sakurann]

not sure why it's not documented here but as noted in the minutes that Babis is quoting, after joseph made a comment in #299 (comment), there was another WG call where the decision to go with option 2 was made. option 2 means that HAIP references the most recent version of sd-jwt vc and that overwrites vp and vci

[jogu]

Rediscussed on today's WG call - consensus that option 2 is correct.

Also agreed we should have an explicit note that this overrides the versions from VCI/VP 1.0 so people should make sure to use the version HAIP says.

[jogu]

addressed by #354