Re: Revised Verifiable Claims WG Charter (RC-2) (was Re: Problem statement)

in good faith....


On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 at 02:08 Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io> wrote:

> Actually....
>
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 10:45 AM, David Chadwick <d.w.chadwick@kent.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Three comments on this:
>> i) Specific processors will presumably be controlled by the user sending
>> the VC to the chosen inspector, so this is quite straightforward
>> ii) We currently do not say anything about specific periods of time as
>> far as I am aware, so there is a mismatch here between your definition
>> and the model
>>
>
> See the use cases; H.4 [1]
>
>
The use-case does not cater well for a hostile soverign. From my
understanding, global issues exist where humans may be compelled to rid
themselves of identifying information as a counterpart to an unfortunate
trade-deal in seeking safety, through transport to a foreign region.

this style of use-case is not defined well in the above (or referenced)
use-case.

Furhtermore; with regard to 'composibility' we need code examples.  I'm
sure manu / dave can provide them, to put the concerns in that area in
black and white.

i don't care about the cryptography method.  i know several alternatives
exist.


> iii) I would like to add to the end of your proposal 'and ensure that
>> the credentials do not contain correlating identifiers' (notice that I
>> specifically said credential rather than claim in this respect)
>>
>
> Friendly amendment: and ensure that the credentials are not required to
> contain correlating identifiers.
>
> [1] http://w3c.github.io/webpayments-ig/VCTF/use-cases/#uneed_H_4
>
>
> Tim.H.

> --
> Shane McCarron
> Projects Manager, Spec-Ops
>