Re: Outcome of 2023 Miami Verifiable Credentials WG Meeting

See comments below...

On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 8:59 PM Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 2:51 PM David Chadwick
> <d.w.chadwick@truetrust.co.uk> wrote:
> > This requires the following questions (at least) to be answered
> >
> > Can the former not be used for confirmation by the verifier or can it be
> used?
>
> Yes, also good questions, David. It wasn't clear (to me, at least)
> during the meeting when a Verifier should use one over the other. It
> seems as if what's being proposed is that the Verifier should prefer
> the confirmation methods to identity attributes. It's also not clear
> what should be done when the information differs... portrait on
> confirmationMethod is different from a property of the credential
> subject. I expect confirmationMethod takes precedence, but that was
> the slippery slope some voiced during the call about why this stuff
> might not belong in credentialSubject.
>
> > Does the former need to be duplicated in confirmationMethod before it
> can be used for confirmation?
>
> Yes, also a good question. I guess we'll see what the answer to that
> is when the PR is raised. :)
>

IMO, the goal should be to reuse those properties. There is also an example
above that does that.


>
> > What are the reasons (if any) that any subject attribute cannot be used
> for confirmation by a verifier regardless of whether a confirmationMethod
> for it exists or not.
>
> Oliver, Paul, correct me if I'm wrong here, but the answer during the
> meeting seemed to be "you put it in the confirmation method so that
> verifiers have one place to check wrt. confirming that the identifier
> binding is the same as the one that the issuer used"? Though, I was a
> bit shaky on what happens from a liability perspective if you do/don't
> use the property. My expectation was "nothing, a verifier's liability
> doesn't shift wrt. the issuer when this property is or is not used"...
> though I can't say I'm confident about that matching what other WG
> Members took away from the session.
>

I don't think that a technical feature in the VCDM spec can answer the
liability question or shift liability without a legal framework or trust
framework in place.


>
> -- 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/
>
>