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

Re: Proposal Work Item | Credential Chaining

From: Daniel Hardman <daniel.hardman@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2022 19:53:15 +0100
Message-ID: <CACU_ch=pLCpF-fnEi-z9ryJs+zD5kfPKcLiLCpLhhkauVVrOdQ@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: "public-credentials@w3.org" <public-credentials@w3.org>
About 3 years ago, I gave a presentation at IIW about chained credentials.
This work turned into Hyperledger Aries RFC 0104, "Chained Credentials"
<https://github.com/hyperledger/aries-rfcs/tree/main/concepts/0104-chained-credentials#readme>.
It is NOT related to anoncreds; the mechanism described there can be used
by any credentialing system, including all of the ones that address the W3C
VC data model standard. It was also used to prototype implementations of
guardianship as studied by the Sovrin Guardianship Task Force.

A later and better generalized version of this idea was described by Sam
Smith, and led to the formation of the Authentic Chained Data Containers
(ACDC) Task Force at Trust Over IP. That WG has been meeting for a year or
two now. Since TOIP is a feeder org for ISO, this work has a potential
fast-track to be picked up by an ISO WG item at some point, although there
is no particular commitment that this will happen. As I understand it,
there's also some talk about IETF for an extra or alternate target.

Sometime this past year, the CCG had an intense discussion about the
perceived overlap in scope between ACDC and ZCAPs. One of the points that
Sam and I both tried to make at that time is that ACDC was about general
chaining, not just about permissioning.

I am not bringing up this prior art to forestall a new work item,
necessarily. However, I would like there to be good awareness that
substantial work already exists on the topic, and that some of it goes by
the name "chained credentials." It would be good to understand the
differences, and perhaps to choose a different term, if it this new work
item is truly tackling new territory. If it is not tackling new territory,
then it would be good to explain how the efforts are different, so people
can make informed choices about which approach meets their needs.

On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 8:24 AM Joosten, H.J.M. (Rieks) <
rieks.joosten@tno.nl> wrote:

> I second Manu's request. Rieks
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, January 28, 2022 7:19:03 PM
> *To:* public-credentials@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: Proposal Work Item | Credential Chaining
>
> On 1/27/22 5:49 AM, Robin Klemens wrote:
> > I hereby want to propose a new work item on "Chaining of Credentials"
>
> The topic sounds interesting, Robin... do you have a link that we could
> read?
> I'm struggling with understanding what you mean by "Chaining of
> Credentials"
> -- as it could mean many things based on the conversations in this
> community
> over the years.
>
> Some background reading material, or just defining what you mean by
> "Chaining
> of Credentials" would be helpful.
>
> -- 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/
>
>
>
>
> This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you
> are not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you
> are requested to inform the sender and delete the message. TNO accepts no
> liability for the content of this e-mail, for the manner in which you use
> it and for damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent to the
> electronic transmission of messages.
>
>
Received on Monday, 31 January 2022 18:54:40 UTC

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