Re: Re: PlugFest 3 Verification Workflow

+1 Andres, I totally agree with you that it's crucial for wallets to be
able to identify Verifiers securely (and relay that info to the user).
So, Known Verifier lists are going to be just as important as Known Issuer
Lists!

On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 3:41 PM Andres Olave <arolave@gmail.com> wrote:

> Markus's list is pretty great and I broadly agree with it. But I did want
> to go deeper into some of the points he raises
>
> Firstly with respect to the issuer trust lists and revocation methods, I
> think that these questions address slightly different issues of what the
> Verifiers need to support, not specifically the wallet. What I mean by that
> is wallets could host credentials with any issuer trust list or revocation
> methods. It means the wallet may not be able to show if the issuer is
> trusted or if the credential is currently revoked, but it can still be a
> vehicle for those credentials and the verifier can trust them as long as
> PoP checks out. But for Verifiers - they must know that the credentials in
> that wallet will be able to be checked against an issuer trust list and a
> revocation ledger.
>
> Secondly, with respect to trust, we have found it very important for the
> wallet to be able to trust the Verifiers receiving presentations, who are
> essentially a counterparty of the wallet. So knowing that a verifier
> belongs on a trust list is vitally important. If the verifier does not
> belong to a specific trust list a Velocity Network wallet will not share
> credentials with it for security reasons.
>
> Thirdly it's also important to distinguish that for wallets, which may be
> custodial or non-custodial, it's the DID methods & Key types for
> individuals that are important to know. Wallets for some platforms will be
> more limited in what they can do for a variety of reasons (hardware
> compatability, performance, ux, etc). Indeed in certain ecosystems wallets
> are doing PoP without DIDs at all. I think its important to distingush this
> use case from DID methods for organizations that in my experience will run
> on servers and have a much broader capabilities.
>
> cheers,
>
> Andres
>
> This is great. I think the questions about a Verifier tool would be similar
> as those about Holder wallets in the PlugFest 3 Contact List <
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mxu_Ts1a2tQX_4XIDxHyppqIitopsn7v2T0RI8RByAI/
> >, for example:
> - Which protocol(s) does your Verifier support for requesting verifiable
> presentations?
> - Which DID method(s) do you support?
> - What is your credential envelope format? (e.g. W3C VC, JWT, Anoncreds, ACDC,
> ISO mDoc, ...)
> - What key types do you support? (e.g. Ed25519)
> - Does your Verifier check Issuer DIDs against a trust registry or other known
> Issuer list? (which one?)
> - Does your Verifier support any revocation methods? (e.g. StatusList2021)
> Markus
>
>
> On 8/14/23 18:49, Sharon Leu wrote:>> Hello vc-edu,>> During PlugFest 3,
> we will be working to demonstrate interoperability > in the presentation
> workflow.  We are excited that a number of > plugfest participants have
> expressed interest in developing their > verification tools for our use
> case.>> Whether or not you are participating in plugfest, our team is >
> interested in hearing from you about what information you would need > to
> know about a verification tool in order to be able to successfully >
> present VPs to that verifier from your wallet solution.  For example, >
> which DID methods, protocols, key type infrastructure, seem important. >
> Anything else?>> Thanks!>> sharon>
>
>