W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > November 2021

RE: Verifiable Credentials v1.1 released for public review

From: Marty Reed <Marty.Reed@randasolutions.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2021 22:27:29 +0000
To: Mike Prorock <mprorock@mesur.io>, "dzagidulin@gmail.com" <dzagidulin@gmail.com>
CC: W3C Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>
Message-ID: <482ca774d026475aba823b31a068bcb3@randasolutions.com>
Thanks for the feedback,

I agree it is not elegant, but we have implemented it in a statewide solution, integrated with three wallet providers and don’t want to be out of spec on day one of the new spec.


Marty Reed | Chief Executive Officer
RANDA Solutions | 2555 Meridian Blvd | Suite 300 | Franklin, TN 37067
office 615 467 6387 | direct 615 915 5446 | fax 615 613 0517

From: Mike Prorock <mprorock@mesur.io>
Sent: Tuesday, November 9, 2021 4:25 PM
To: dzagidulin@gmail.com
Cc: W3C Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>; Marty Reed <Marty.Reed@randasolutions.com>
Subject: Re: Verifiable Credentials v1.1 released for public review

+1 we typically use a verifiable presentation with multiple VCs, or link them.
On Tue, Nov 9, 2021, 17:22 Dmitri Zagidulin <dzagidulin@gmail.com<mailto:dzagidulin@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Marty,

For what it's worth, I think that nesting VCs in each other is often a red flag. In most cases (including the educational / transcript ones), you'd be better off linking to other VCs, instead of embedding. Or using a Verifiable Presentation to bundle.

On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 3:54 PM Marty Reed <Marty.Reed@randasolutions.com<mailto:Marty.Reed@randasolutions.com>> wrote:
I did not see it specifically noted in the document, however I have further reviewed and it is in the implementation guide for 1.0 not in the spec itself.

Forgive my lack of experience with standards development here:

Is the implementation guide only developed after approval of the spec?

Would it be prudent to acknowledge in the spec nesting is supported?

Nesting VCs has been a hot topic in the IMS Global OB/CLR Conceptual modeling discussion for 3.0/2.0 respectively.

Marty



Marty Reed | Chief Executive Officer
RANDA Solutions | 2555 Meridian Blvd | Suite 300 | Franklin, TN 37067
office 615 467 6387 | direct 615 915 5446 | fax 615 613 0517


Confidentiality Disclaimer: This email and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the person or entity to whom this is addressed, or the person responsible for delivery of this email to the intended recipient, you have received this email in error. Any use, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, printing or copying of this email including attachments is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, immediately delete it from your system without copying and notify the sender so that our records can be corrected.

-----Original Message-----
From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com<mailto:msporny@digitalbazaar.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, November 9, 2021 2:35 PM
To: public-credentials@w3.org<mailto:public-credentials@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Verifiable Credentials v1.1 released for public review

On 11/9/21 2:03 PM, Marty Reed wrote:
> Will the v1.1 spec no longer support nesting VCs as in the 1.0 spec?

v1.1 is fully backwards compatible with v1.0. If someone thinks that it isn't, please let us know.

Nesting VCs is fully supported when using the `proof` property (via Linked Data Integrity).

Nesting VCs is not supported when using JWTs (but that has always been the case).

Again, what was possible with v1.0 is still possible w/ v1.1. Is there something that led you to believe that this has changed, Marty?

-- manu

--
Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/

Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
News: Digital Bazaar Announces New Case Studies (2021) https://www.digitalbazaar.com/


Received on Tuesday, 9 November 2021 22:27:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:25:24 UTC