add credential format profile for vcdm 2 with jose

[TimoGlastra]

This partially addresses #194, but only focuses on the VCDM 2.0 with JOSE (vc+jwt and vc+sd-jwt), but doesn't include the JSON-LD-based or CBOR based variants.

It might make sense to add them all at once, but we have only implemented / experimented with the JOSE-based variants.

Since there was already an issue where contribution was asked, I decided to create a PR directly instead of opening the discussion in the issue again.

Based on comments from @jogu in #194 I added a new profile rather than extending the existing VCDM profile.

[bc-pi]

generally agree here

[nanderstabel]

generally agree here

I'm curious to learn about why it might not be a good idea to add this Profile. Is it because it's not the 'purpose/responsibility' of the OpenID4VCI standard to specify extension points for this Credential Format? Currently Appendix A states: "This section defines Credential Format Profiles for a few of the commonly used Credential Formats.", and jwt_vc_json, jwt_vc_json-ld and ldp_vc the ones currently based on VCDM1.1. I would argue that VCDM2.0 (including the securing mechanism defined in VC-JOSE-COSE) is (or will be) more commonly used than VCDM1.1 🤔 Especially since other larger Data Models like OBv3 and ELM are based on VCDM2.0 so 1. having a Credential Format Profile defined that adheres to VCDM2.0 + VC-JOSE-COSE to me seems quite crucial for further adoption/interoperability and 2. for visibility (as well as adoption and interoperability) adding this profile to Appendix A would be great imo, or alternatively perhaps, move all Credential Format Profiles to a separate Credential Format Profiles Registry (a la IANA Media Type Registry)(?)

I'm genuinely trying to understand/learn :)

[Sakurann]

as a chair, I marked it do not merge, simply because it was a PR for an issue that the wg has not agreed to have a PR for, yet. we can keep discussing the proposed design in the PR.

WG discussion, concerns were expressed regarding lack of expertise in the WG to review this PR, and suggestion was made that this can be 1.2 topic.

note: we seemed to have similar 1.1 vs 2.0 discussions in VP, but not VCI openid/OpenID4VP#297 (review)

[TimoGlastra]

it was a PR for an issue that the wg has not agreed to have a PR for, yet

Apologies, i misunderstood what was said in #194 then.

I can move the important parts of the pr to the issue if the WG prefers to keep it in the issue for now