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

Re: Expiry time in Data Model

From: Eric Korb <eric.korb@accreditrust.com>
Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 14:43:12 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMX+RnA5F3xwJhZ60-yOYMwhLjJ2zEyOFLuzRUy0CUMBSGRdeQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Stone, Matt" <matt.stone@pearson.com>
Cc: David Chadwick <d.w.chadwick@kent.ac.uk>, Jason Weaver <jweaver@parchment.com>, Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
I believe the Web Payments Task Force is addressing this for "payment
processing."

Manu? Dave?

Eric
<https://mail.google.com/>

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Stone, Matt <matt.stone@pearson.com> wrote:

> this is an expiration on the credential, itself, right?  something like
> this: certified in xyz, effective 1/1/2012, expiring 1/1/2013.
>
> do we have anything like a "time to live" for the claim itself - i'm
> inspired by TTL in DNS.  a secondary server can hold DNS information for a
> brief period w/out going back to the master for updates.  In the repository
> model, something like this might make for a more resilient and performant
> system.
>
> -stone
>
>
> =====
> Matt Stone
> 501-291-1599
>
>
> On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 12:04 PM, David Chadwick <d.w.chadwick@kent.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> HI Jason
>>
>> yes that is correct. I think 'expires' should be mandatory on the
>> credential message and not need to be on the embedded claims (unless
>> these are different for each claim)
>>
>> regards
>>
>> David
>>
>> On 20/05/2016 18:39, Jason Weaver wrote:
>> > Hi, Eric, David.
>> >
>> > I think the distinction David is making about a requirement on the
>> > expiration of the claim message, versus the expiration of the claim
>> > content itself that OB expire refers to and makes optional, correct?
>> >
>> > Thank you,
>> > Jason
>> > *--*
>> >
>> > *JASON WEAVER *| DIRECTOR, DIGITAL CREDENTIALS STRATEGY
>> > CO-CHAIR, PESC EDUCATION RECORD USER GROUP
>> > jweaver@parchment.com <mailto:jweaver@parchment.com>
>> > direct 480.719.1646 <tel:480.719.1646>* *ext. 1017
>> > 6263 North Scottsdale Road, Suite 330, Scottsdale, AZ 85250
>> >
>> > *Parchment *|* *Turn Credentials into Opportunities
>> > www.parchment.com <http://www.parchment.com/>
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 7:17 AM, Eric Korb <eric.korb@accreditrust.com
>> > <mailto:eric.korb@accreditrust.com>> wrote:
>> >
>> >     David,
>> >
>> >     Great question.  The JSON-LD model allow us to leverage the
>> >     OpenBadges  - "expire" property found in their vocabulary.
>> >
>> >     ,
>> >         "http://w3id.org/openbadges/v1expires": [
>> >           {
>> >             "@value": "2020-05-05T21:53:01Z"
>> >           }
>> >         ],
>> >
>> >     Digital Credential validation tools then need to evaluate the
>> property.
>> >
>> >     Eric
>> >
>> >
>>  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >     TrueCred™ | Digital Credential Trust™
>> >
>>  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> >     *Eric R. Korb | Chief Executive Officer | Warren, New Jersey*
>> >
>> >
>> >     <https://mail.google.com/>
>> >
>> >     On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 7:13 AM, David Chadwick
>> >     <d.w.chadwick@kent.ac.uk <mailto:d.w.chadwick@kent.ac.uk>> wrote:
>> >
>> >         Hi Manu
>> >
>> >         Can ask why a verifiable claim does not have an expiry time as a
>> >         mandatory component? Whilst the attribute itself may not expire
>> >         e.g. a
>> >         university degree, nevertheless the electronic representation
>> of the
>> >         claim should have an expiry time due to the inherent weaknesses
>> in
>> >         cryptographic systems and the need to continually increase key
>> >         sizes,
>> >         improve algorithms etc.
>> >
>> >         Without an expiry time the issuer may have to keep revocation
>> >         information for ever.
>> >
>> >         regards
>> >
>> >         David
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
Received on Friday, 20 May 2016 18:43:59 UTC

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