Re: Deprecation of termsOfUse in VCDM v2.0

Dear,

Apologies for not being able to join the meeting (vacations).

Usage of termsOfUse is defined and implemented for the following cases:

- https://code.europa.eu/ebsi/json-schema/-/tree/main/schemas/vcdm1.1/accreditation?ref_type=heads (VCDM v1.1)
	- related specs: https://hub.ebsi.eu/vc-framework/trust-model/issuer-trust-model-v3 
- https://code.europa.eu/ebsi/json-schema/-/tree/main/schemas/vcdm2.0/trust-model?ref_type=heads (VCDM v2)
	- related specs: https://hub.ebsi.eu/vc-framework/trust-model/issuer-trust-model-v4

Accreditation issuance is also tested: https://hub.ebsi.eu/conformance/build-solutions/accredit-and-authorise-functional-flows
And number of conformation providers is available: 

- https://ec.europa.eu/digital-building-blocks/sites/display/EBSI/Conformant+wallets (12 currently)


Second use of the terms of use is defined: https://hub..ebsi.eu/vc-framework/trust-model/policies <https://hub.ebsi.eu/vc-framework/trust-model/policies> 
This terms of use is even more important since it allows
- limit the unauthorised sharing of credentials from the wallet
- easily define RP authentication and requirements RP needs to meet to present credentials

I believe this case is currently not defined in the specs.

BR, Alen


> On 20 Jul 2024, at 22:24, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Alen, John, and Symeon,
> 
> I'm sending this on behalf of the W3C Verifiable Credentials Working Group.
> 
> As you know, the group is considering the removal of the section on
> "Terms of Use" from the VCDM v2.0 specification. It was brought to our
> attention that EBSI uses the property, has implemented it, and can
> provide 1) confirmation that they are using it in a significant way,
> and 2) an example for us to use in the specification.
> 
> We had invited EBSI to the last two meetings and allocated agenda
> time, but no one from EBSI has been able to attend. The Working Group
> needs to make a determination on this PR:
> 
> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1498
> 
> To be clear, we are not removing the feature, but rather "reserving
> the term for future definition" because no one else has been able to
> come forward demonstrating a significant deployment of the feature.
> 
> If EBSI would like us to keep the section in the specification, please
> 1) confirm that EBSI has deployed the feature in a significant way
> (e.g., you have deployed it in a production setting and/or there are
> multiple implementers of EBSI Terms of Use), and 2) provide an example
> of a VC that contains the EBSI Terms of Use extension.
> 
> If we do not get the following from EBSI in the next 7 days, we will
> proceed with reserving the term for future definition and removing the
> section describing the term from the v2.0 specification.
> 
> -- manu
> 
> -- 
> Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/
> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> https://www.digitalbazaar.com/