- From: David Chadwick <d.w.chadwick@kent.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2016 19:11:46 +0100
- To: Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io>
- Cc: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>, Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
On 10/08/2016 17:07, Shane McCarron wrote: > Actually.... > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 10:45 AM, David Chadwick > <d.w.chadwick@kent.ac.uk <mailto: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] I missed that one! Thankyou > > > 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. Ok, thanks. Or maybe, 'do not contain unintended correlating identifiers' which is slightly different to 'not required to' David > > [1] http://w3c.github.io/webpayments-ig/VCTF/use-cases/#uneed_H_4 > > > -- > Shane McCarron > Projects Manager, Spec-Ops
Received on Wednesday, 10 August 2016 18:12:15 UTC