Re: VCs: Correcting and re-issuing an updated VC?

>
>
>    1. Is there is a process for correcting an issued VC being held by,
>    say, the Subject, and then re-issuing the updated VC? Best practice to
>    achieve this with backward traceability?
>
> This has always been an important use case for a revocation feature. If
you (holder/subject) didn't ask for the correction, you discover that the
old cred is now revoked when you go to prove something with it, because you
can no longer prove it's not revoked -- or you find out proactively from
the issuer using something like Revocation Notification Protocol (
https://github.com/hyperledger/aries-rfcs/blob/master/features/0183-revocation-notification/README.md
).

Who do you want to be able to trace this? The issuer should have this
automatically, right? The subject as well? Why would it be important for
the verifier to have it?


>    1. Can the VC be re-issued with the same ‘id’ value?
>
> I believe the VC spec is ambiguous WRT this question. We have never cared
in ZKP land because the issued credential is never presented; rather, a
derived credential is presented, and its ID is thus irrelevant.


>
>    1. Can a VC be “versioned”? …and maintain the same ‘id’ value
>
>
No support for this in the spec, IMO. But I can imagine ways it could be
done. Not sure whether the community would deem them kosher. (In the world
of physical creds, I get a new driver's license every 8 years -- but the
new one isn't considered a new version of the old one; they're just thought
of as separate. Is that good enough?)

>