W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > June 2016

Re: VOTE: Verifiable Claims Terminology

From: Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2016 12:56:10 -0400
To: David Chadwick <d.w.chadwick@kent.ac.uk>, public-credentials@w3.org
Message-ID: <575C42AA.6060705@digitalbazaar.com>
On 06/11/2016 07:27 AM, David Chadwick wrote:
> 
> 
> It would appear to be so from the cat example that Dave gave (that
> unfortunately has been cut out of your reply), in which the cat has two
> different profiles but the same ID (because it refers to the same cat).
> I think this is the wrong design, because we have now created
> linkability between two separate profiles (or pseudonyms) that I might
> have sent to two different relying parties. By using a common ID for two
> different identity profiles we produce a correlation handle for the
> relying parties.

There are multiple use cases we want to support. One of them involves
the ability to share a common identity with multiple parties. That
doesn't mean that you *must* do this, it just means that you can.

There are also cases where you should be able to have the unlinkability
characteristics you mention, which can be implemented in a variety of
different ways. I believe a layered approach will work here. I will
reiterate though that the trust characteristics, disincentives for
fraud, and infrastructure needs can be much more complicated in the
unlinkable use cases.


-- 
Dave Longley
CTO
Digital Bazaar, Inc.
Received on Saturday, 11 June 2016 16:56:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 July 2018 21:19:29 UTC