W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > January 2022

Re: use of "nbf" in jwt-encoded VCs

From: Orie Steele <orie@transmute.industries>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2022 17:27:26 -0600
Message-ID: <CAN8C-_+V0g_xFpJUNtq8TuQifd-djA7sR9tR-4K2P00AKxr1Ug@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nikos Fotiou <fotiou@aueb.gr>
Cc: "W3C Credentials CG (Public List)" <public-credentials@w3.org>
https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/844

https://www.w3.org/TR/vc-data-model/#issuance-date

Basically the name "issuanceDate" was a mistake.

Its use aligns with `nbf` or the idea of postdating a check.

`iat` aligns with `proof.created` (in the JSON-LD)... the VC Data Model
does not have an "abstract" or "serialization independent" representation
of "signature applied at this timestamp the issuer claims is when this
signature was applied"....

I think we all hope for better names and clearer mappings in 2.0.

Regards,

OS

ᐧ

On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 5:07 PM Nikos Fotiou <fotiou@aueb.gr> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> In the “jwt-encoding” section of the VC data model 1.1 (
> https://www.w3.org/TR/vc-data-model/#jwt-encoding) it says:
>
>
>
> “nbf MUST represent issuanceDate, encoded as a UNIX timestamp”
>
>
>
> Nevertheless, according to RFC 7519 nbf means “not before” (
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7519#section-4.1.5) whereas for
> the issuing time the same RFC defines the claim “iat” (
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7519#section-4.1.6)
>
>
>
> So I am wondering why “nbf” was selected for representing the
>  “issuanceDate” and not “iat”?
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Nikos
>
>
>
> Nikos Fotiou - http://pages.cs.aueb.gr/~fotiou
>
> Researcher - Mobile Multimedia Laboratory
>
> Athens University of Economics and Business
>
> https://mm.aueb.gr
>
>
>


-- 
*ORIE STEELE*
Chief Technical Officer
www.transmute.industries

<https://www.transmute.industries>
Received on Monday, 24 January 2022 23:32:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:25:28 UTC