Extend Annex B with positioning against VC / OID4VCI / OID4VP / ISO 18013-5

[Jenziner]

Problem

Annex B ("Relationship to Existing Standards") does not yet address the
W3C Verifiable Credentials family or the OpenID4VC protocol suite, even
though the Issued Copy concept is functionally adjacent to a
Verifiable Credential, and the control-context presentation flow
is functionally adjacent to OID4VP / ISO 18013-5 proximity presentation.

Proposal

Add a subsection to Annex B clarifying the relationship — complementary,
not competing.

Proposed text

B.x Verifiable Credentials, OID4VC, and ISO 18013-5

The W3C Verifiable Credentials Data Model v2.0 and its associated Data
Integrity specification define a three-party model (issuer, holder,
verifier) for signed, portable claims, typically small in payload and
optimized for offline, device-to-device presentation (e.g. ISO/IEC 18013-5
proximity flows for mobile driving licenses). OpenID4VCI and OpenID4VP
specify, respectively, how such credentials are issued (including a
"credential offer" pattern functionally similar to RecordWeb's Issued
Copy export) and how they are presented to a verifier.

RecordWeb does not replace this ecosystem. The Record remains the
authoritative institutional object, addressed via did:rwp and retained
at its place of origin — a concern the VC ecosystem does not model, since
a Verifiable Credential has no "origin system" it is bound to remain at.
Conversely, RecordWeb's Issued Copy can, for small, schema-bounded
payloads, be technically realized as a Verifiable Credential without
conflict — RecordWeb defines when and why such an artifact is issued;
the VC/OID4VC stack can define how it is technically encoded and
presented in control contexts.

For payloads too large for proximity presentation, RecordWeb does not
introduce a new transfer protocol. It relies on ordinary Record creation
at the receiving party, with explicit provenance metadata — the
receiving party creates its own incoming Record, rather than the citizen's
device acting as a RecordWeb node.

Open questions for CG discussion

• Should RWP formally recommend VC Data Integrity as the default proof
  format for Issued Copies, or remain proof-format-agnostic?