Re: Verifiable Claims Telecon Minutes for 2016-02-09

On 02/15/2016 03:32 PM, Steven Rowat wrote:
> On 2/15/16 10:06 AM, John Tibbetts wrote:
>> Hi Steven, I think you’d get a lot of push-back from registrars if 
>> you asserted that the student is the owner of the student record.
> 
> [snip] Thus, Declarer, Bearer, Acceptor.

I think "Bearer" is problematic for a number of reasons. It's already
used in the crypto/authN/authZ space to indicate that possession of a
token or credential is sufficient to use it, as in there is no need to
prove that the bearer is its rightful owner.

For example, having a ticket to see a show may get you into a show,
regardless of how you acquired that ticket (you bought it, received it
as a gift, or you stole it). It's not tightly bound to a particular
entity -- and we expect many verifiable claims to have tighter binding
requirements.

That being said, I do like "Acceptor" as a straight up replacement for
"Consumer". It may be my favorite alternative so far.

-- 
Dave Longley
CTO
Digital Bazaar, Inc.

Received on Monday, 15 February 2016 21:32:30 UTC