Add support for VC-JWT

[OR13]

per the work item call today, we agreed to expand scope to enable the ability to demonstrate a VC-JWT capability.

[OR13]

I will start this as soon as we have 3 implementations rendering in the report.

[OR13]

• Update spec title and description to account for new scope.
• Update the spec to note that the same keys and inputs can be used to show conformance for both formats.
• Add output format to implementation results and report. (handle absence same way as keys)
• JWS vectors to be represented in decoded / expanded form.

[bumblefudge]

casually proposed on the call, but not really discussed: separate LDP and VC-JWT sections entirely and repeat all implementations under test for both, for clarity/readability. companies not under test for both proof types could be omitted completely or have a table full of absences, same as keys :D

[OR13]

noting this related issue in ES256K that impacts signatures produced by open SSL.

decentralized-identity/ES256K-interop#1

[OR13]

i think we still have some cleanup to do, especially to the report format, before we can call this done.

[decentralgabe]

Bumping, we're moving in the right direction but as per the initial issue post seems there's a little bit more work

[OR13]

I suggest we close this, and open newer issues for any remaining VC-JWT problems