- From: Steve Capell <steve.capell@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 09:01:51 +1100
- To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Cc: "Deventer, M.O. (Oskar) van" <oskar.vandeventer@tno.nl>, public-credentials@w3.org, Calvin Cheng <Calvin_cheng@hive.tech.gov.sg>, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>, Andrea D'Intino <andrea@dyne.org>, Shannon Appelcline <shannon.appelcline@gmail.com>, Wolf McNally <wolf@wolfmcnally.com>, Christopher Allen <ChristopherA@lifewithalacrity.com>, Daniel Hardman <daniel.hardman@gmail.com>
+1 to Manu The term “redaction” is correct because we are not taking about verifier request scope, we are talking about ANY holder of a credential (even one who is not the original subject) being able to redact (black out) data. It is precisely like the FOI request black pen. And it is exactly how the Singapore trade trust framework works Steven Capell Mob: 0410 437854 > On 25 Feb 2025, at 3:46 AM, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 10:26 AM Deventer, M.O. (Oskar) van > <oskar.vandeventer@tno.nl> wrote: >> I guess I am missing your point. My point is that "selective redaction" spuriously implies that the holder has any control over what it selectively discloses or redacts during an electronic exchange with a verifier-machine. > > Yes, I think I understand your point... and what I'm saying is that > the Holder DOES have control over what it discloses or redacts during > SOME electronic exchange with a Verifier. The Verifier also has > control over whether it will accept the presentation. > > We're clearly talking past each other, but I can't see where yet. :P > >> I agree that my suggestion has its issues as well. However, if we are going to change a term that has been widely-used in the W3C-CCG community, then let's make sure that we get it right. > > +1 to that. :) > > I'll also note that the "selective disclosure" ship has probably > already sailed, much to the dismay of some of the people in this > thread. SD-JWT and ecdsa-sd exist and will be global standards soon > (and it's too late to rename them now). > > "selective redaction" hasn't shipped yet, so there is still time to > change what we call it, though I admit that I don't find it that > terrible of a name given the other suggestions in the thread. > > Remember when it was asserted that "DID" was a terrible acronym > because it refers to "Dissociative Identity Disorder"? ... and that no > one would take DIDs seriously because of the name... but, we seem to > have survived that potential crisis. > > Not saying that picking the right term isn't important -- it is... > just noting how difficult it is to get to consensus, as every choice > has its challenges. I'm sensing a ranked choice poll in our collective > future. :P > > -- manu > > -- > Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/ > Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. > https://www.digitalbazaar.com/
Received on Monday, 24 February 2025 22:02:09 UTC