W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > November 2014

Re: [ba-standard] Considering the Open Badges crypto tech stack

From: Eric Korb <eric.korb@accreditrust.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 13:13:58 -0500
Message-ID: <CAMX+RnDdPHzN1qwajcMRxfzvDuGtDtox7Rxxiw07H5RbYgES8w@mail.gmail.com>
To: ba-standard@googlegroups.com
Cc: Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>, Brian Brennan <brian@mozillafoundation.org>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, "openbadges-dev@googlegroups.com" <openbadges-dev@googlegroups.com>
@Kerri @all (reposted)

We had a deep conversation during our last Credentials Community Call on
Nov 25, 2014.  May I suggest that you read the minutes (listen to audio
reply) that can be found here: http://www.w3.org/community/credentials/

IMHO, trying to support more than one signature type would not be the best
course of action because it would make implementations really complicated.
I expect the CCG to continue to evaluate the technical merits of JOSE and
SM methodologies, but more importantly their applicability to

Thanks for the input.


On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Kerri Lemoie <kerri@achievery.com> wrote:

> I'm a little bit late jumping in on this thread. I've been thinking about
> Jason's message.
> Currently the verification type is binary - either hosted or signed.
> Should we consider extending the verification type so that it can include
> both JOSE and JSON-LD and for that matter any type we haven't yet
> considered? Verifiers/validators can then determine what they will accept.
> All that the standard needs to provide is that a verification type is
> required.
Received on Wednesday, 26 November 2014 18:14:45 UTC

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