Code change:
claim. <del> 6.4.4. </del> <ins> 6.3.4. </ins> <del> A Consumer MAY cache Type metadata for a type.  If a hash for integrity protection is present in the Type Metadata as defined in document-integrity, the Consumer MAY assume that the Type Metadata is static and can be cached indefinitely.  Otherwise, the Consumer MUST use the </del> <ins> A Consumer MAY cache Type Metadata for a SD-JWT VC type.  If a hash for integrity protection is present in the Type Metadata as defined in document-integrity, the Consumer MAY assume that the Type Metadata is static and can be cached indefinitely.  Otherwise, the Consumer MUST use the </ins> header of the HTTP response to determine how long the metadata can be cached. <del> 6.4.5. </del> <ins> 6.3.5. </ins> Credentials MAY encode Type Metadata directly, providing it as "glue <del> information" to the consumer. </del> <ins> information" to the Consumer. </ins> For JSON-serialized JWS-based credentials, such Type Metadata documents MAY be included in the unprotected header of the JWS.  In

Related discussion:
text: This PR includes the following: [x] Add schema type metadata [x] Add full schema type metadata examples [x] Describe base document for schema validation [x] Minor editorial fixes [x] Moved type metadata retrieval section for readability purposes [x] ~IANA considerations for , and ~ See preview here: URL Fixes URL
NAME NAME Do you think it makes sense to describe the base document for schema type metadata validation? For example, a verifier receiving an SD-JWT VC with Disclosures won't be able to validate the JSON schema against it before transforming the entire SD-JWT VC with Disclosures to expanded JSON document first.
NAME NAME Should we restrict schema to specific JSON schema versions?
I'm honestly not familiar with the intricacies of JSON schema. Is/are there a stable standard version(s) that can be referenced from a prospective RFC? The current content of the PR seems to have some normative statements but no reference. I'd think that's kind of a prerequisite to discussing version restrictions/requirements. A few minutes of looking around and I found this https://json-URL which at least suggests it's a bit messy. Any idea if/how other actual standards documents utilize JSON schema?
Well, statements like "MUST validate the Verifiable Credential against the provided JSON Schema document." probably need some more clarity about what part of the VC and at what stage of transformation/processing.
I suggest that we proceed with merging this PR nonetheless and have a separate discussion on JSON Schema versions in an issue.
Update: We don't need IANA registration for schema, schemauri and schemauri#integrity since type metadata is not a JWT.
NAME NAME Can you please check the examples I added.
I believe we will need to distinguish between presentation and issuance schemas -> see
I don't really speak JSON schema but it looks ok
Thanks a lot. I updated the PR. Will merge later on the editor's call.
Merging this since all comments were addressed.
Define how schemas can be included in type metadata. Requirement is that it should allow JSON schema.
left a couple of editorial remarks, but generally this looks good to me, thank you!