- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2024 14:56:53 -0500
- To: W3C Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>
On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 2:25 PM Steve Capell <steve.capell@gmail.com> wrote: > That sounds very useful. If I understand right, this means that an issuer need not pick only one proof method. Issue with several so that verifiers can pick the one that suits them? Yes, and to be clear, it's ultimately a choice that the Holder makes (among the options that the Issuer and Verifier provide). The issuer goes: "I've given you a VC that can be disclosed in a variety of different ways: ECDSA, EdDSA, ECDSA-SD, and BBS." The verifier goes: "I accept VCs disclosed in these ways: ECDSA, ECDSA-SD, and BBS." The holder (really, the wallet) goes: "I'll pick the one that the Verifier will accept and that maximizes privacy for the Holder: BBS." Ultimately, what we hope this does is provide better options to Issuers to provide more privacy preserving options, and provide better options to verifiers to only request the specific claims necessary for a particular transaction... and all of this capability is wrapped into a single VC (an easy to use and reason about package). > If so then that certainly is an interoperability and scalability breakthrough Yes, we think so too. :) > Is there any draft specification document for this yet? These technologies were incubated in the W3C CCG years ago and are now on the standards-track at W3C (some of them in the final leg of the process): https://www.w3.org/TR/vc-di-ecdsa/ https://www.w3.org/TR/vc-di-eddsa/ https://www.w3.org/TR/vc-di-bbs/ Ideally, they'll be ratified as global W3C standards this year. The future is closer than it may seem. :) -- manu -- Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/ Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. https://www.digitalbazaar.com/
Received on Monday, 29 January 2024 19:57:36 UTC