Re: Verifiable Requests?

Totally understandable - at the moment we have a rudimentary implementation
that doesn't support many features in this area. We were hoping to be
farther along in this direction, but it's just taken time to get the basics
going with all the implementation considerations we're dealing with. We
definitely aspire to live up to all the privacy features of credential tech
you and others have advocated for so long.

On Sun, Dec 20, 2020, 11:57 AM Daniel Hardman <daniel.hardman@evernym.com>
wrote:

> I apologize.
>
> When you and I and your team spoke at length earlier this year, I remember
> some discussions about how to achieve selective disclosure by returning to
> the issuer. Apparently I either remembered incorrectly or read too much
> into them. My intent was to accurately summarize what I understood, not to
> mischaracterize your thinking. I have lamented being misrepresented, so I
> know that can be frustrating. I'm sorry.
>
> --Daniel
>
> On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 11:44 AM Daniel Buchner <danieljb2@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> "MS has proposed to do it [limiting disclosure] by going back to the
>> Issuer" - I just want to point out that we are *not* proposing calling back
>> to Issuers as the solution for limited disclosure. As we've researched and
>> written about in depth (
>> https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/identity-standards-blog/advancing-privacy-with-zero-knowledge-proof-credentials/ba-p/1441554)
>> we are gearing up to do this via ZKPs. I'd request that folks please try
>> not to state the positions of other entities without high confidence in
>> what that entity's positions are.
>>
>>
>>