- From: Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 12:20:52 -0400
- To: Joe Andrieu <joe@joeandrieu.com>, public-credentials@w3.org
On 06/24/2017 03:30 PM, Joe Andrieu wrote: > David, > > I can see where it reads that way, but I'm not making that > assumption at all. > > Relating the subject to any particular entity is dealt with outside > the claim. There may be enough information in the claim itself to do > the correlation or it may need to be done externally either in > context or based on other data. This is a problem of authentication, > not verification. > > Of course, if the subject is uncorrelatable through any means then > the claim can't be tied to a specific entity, then the > inspector/verifier/relying-party will have a hard time applying the > claim. > > However, one could generate random pseudonymous unique identifiers > and use those to collect a set of claims from various issuers, > presenting the set of claims as a related set and the RP could > correlate across those claims some relevant fact. For any given > claim the subject appears random and private, but isn't in fact in > the context the set of claims. Each of those claims are valid, even > if useless in isolation. > > In the case of a truly noncorrelatable subject, i.e., the random > unique number private to the subject, the claimant still doesn't > *have* to prove anything for the claim to be valid. The claim, > however, may be useless. Which is fine. Not all verified claims are > going to be useful. But bearer claims exactly fit this use case. The > bearer of this claim *is* the subject of the claim and due the > privileges associated with the claim. > > We don't want to conflate the possibility of authenticating the > claimant as the subject with it being an innate requirement of > Verifiable Claims. Nor do we want to require some proof of rights or > relationship between the claimant and subject. These are outside the > scope of the claim itself. That's why I say that ROLE_B doesn't > innately have to prove anything. I agree -- but I'd like to note that "outside the scope of the claim" does not mean outside the scope of the VCWG (and definitely not outside the scope of the CG). -- Dave Longley CTO Digital Bazaar, Inc. http://digitalbazaar.com
Received on Monday, 26 June 2017 16:21:20 UTC