Re: RWOT Holder Binding paper got published

Thanks for this!

It seems like a naive interpretation of "holder binding" is ... a
credential / claim bound to a specific key.

Instead of binding to a "generic subject" the binding is to a specific key
(possibly in hardware or software isolation).

Is that correct?

OS


On Thu, Feb 2, 2023 at 10:21 AM Oliver Terbu <oliver.terbu@spruceid.com>
wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> Since we had a number of issues and lots of discussions on holder binding
> in the last couple of months, we wrote a RWOT paper and it got published
> finally. I'm sharing this already since it is relevant to upcoming
> discussions on holder binding in W3C.
>
> IDENTIFIER BINDING: DEFINING THE CORE OF HOLDER BINDING
> -
> https://github.com/WebOfTrustInfo/rwot11-the-hague/blob/master/final-documents/identifier-binding.pdf
> -
> https://github.com/WebOfTrustInfo/rwot11-the-hague/blob/master/final-documents/identifier-binding.md
>
> by Paul Bastian, Rieks Joosten, Zaïda Rivai, Oliver Terbu, Snorre Lothar
> von Gohren Edwin, Antonio Antonino, Nikos Fotiou, Stephen Curran, and
> Ahamed Azeem
>
> Lead author: Oliver Terbu
>
> Over the last year(s), various issues have been raised that revolve around
> what has been called 'holder binding'. The term 'holder binding' itself
> isn't clearly defined, and is in fact quite contentious. This paper seeks
> to come to grips with this discussion. Our first contribution is the
> specification of a terminology, which is intended to help readers
> understand what we mean to say without requiring them to make assumptions
> about such meanings (as is often the case in discussions about 'holder
> binding'). Our second contribution is an analysis of a (fictitious)
> use-case that suggests that verifiers typically do not need to know who the
> holder is (i.e. who has presented the claims to be verified). This analysis
> shows that verifiers need capabilities to (a) learn which entity is the
> subject of a particular claim, and (b) to know whether or not two subject
> identifiers refer to the same entity or to different entities. Also, they
> may need assurances regarding the party on whose behalf the component that
> has electronically presented the claims, has been using those capabilities.
> Our third contribution is a proposal for the syntax and semantics of a new
> property that can be used in (different parts of) VCs/VPs, that will
> provide verifiers with such capabilities.
>
> [image: Screenshot 2023-02-02 at 17.17.33.png]
>
> Thanks,
> Oliver
>


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

<https://www.transmute.industries>