RE: How much is it reasonable to generalize from the TruAge implementation?

>The EIDAS 2.0 wallets (that are intended to include lots of VCs with PII) that the EU will require its member states to make available
>to its citizens (that want them), would be certified against a yet-to-be-determined scheme and then ‘notified’, i.e. put on a list of wallets

Thanks for making this point, Rieks!

This reality is also, in part, my motivation for engaging in this discussion. My perspective, both directly and publicly regarding this is that I have no desire or ability to tell anyone what they should do, particularly another sovereign, while at the same time noting that what a particular sovereign does is not binding on others.

However, there is shared desire across jurisdictions to ensure that the 3 party identity model can work across implementations, even those with differing policy and implementation objectives.

I always considered that the best way to make that work in practice is to have a shared, open conversation about “yet-to-be-determined scheme”(s) a.k.a the criteria TBD to evaluate the qualities of a wallet,  so that the community can contribute to and align on things that everyone agrees is of value, and those agreements could become the foundation of the bridges that ensure cross-jurisdictional and global interoperability.

Best Regards,

Anil

Anil John
Technical Director, Silicon Valley Innovation Program
Science and Technology Directorate
US Department of Homeland Security
Washington, DC, USA

Email Response Time – 24 Hours or more; I sometimes send emails outside of business days/times because it works for me; please do not feel any obligation to reply to them outside of your normal working patterns.

[A picture containing graphical user interface  Description automatically generated]<https://www.dhs.gov/science-and-technology>[/Users/holly.johnson/Library/Containers/com.microsoft.Outlook/Data/Library/Caches/Signatures/signature_1972159395]