[MINUTES] VCWG Spec Refinement 2026-02-25 from meetings@w3c-ccg.org on 2026-02-25 (public-vc-wg@w3.org from February 2026)

From: <meetings@w3c-ccg.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2026 17:58:19 -0600
To: public-vc-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <CA+ChqYdRn=mJQOUqb-iTBaYkZ4u_Qj8c-hnn6J_4Rm0pROF=ow@mail.gmail.com>

統 Notes

Feb 25, 2026
VCWG Spec Refinement

Invited Benjamin Young <byoung@digitalbazaar.com> Brent Zundel
<brent.zundel@gmail.com> dzagidulin@gmail.com W3C CCG Meetings
<meetings@w3c-ccg.org> joeandrieu@gmail.com philarcher1@googlemail.com
joe@legreq.com ~~ivan@w3.org~~ ~~msporny@digitalbazaar.com~~

Attachments VCWG Spec Refinement
<https://www.google.com/calendar/event?eid=aWtmZW5kamtsZWxmMnZvbTdrYmZlMTlhbXJfMjAyNjAyMjVUMTYwMDAwWiBtZWV0aW5nc0B3M2MtY2NnLm9yZw>

Meeting records Transcript <?tab=t.lfu6r2apcqi0> Recording
<https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QFxDiiYmxkZ3-Sl6NGmIEHH5SyitU3Nx/view?usp=drive_web>
Summary

The VCWG Spec Refinement meeting on Feb 25, 2026, focused on key areas
including updates to the Verifiable Credentials Working Group (VCWG)
charter, a detailed discussion on the terminology and scope of "holder
binding" versus "confidence method," and the introduction of threat
modeling for W3C specifications. The group debated the accuracy of "holder
binding" and clarified that the "confidence method" aims to increase
confidence in a subject's attributes rather than solely in the presenter's
identity at the time of presentation. A significant portion of the meeting
was dedicated to introducing a new threat modeling methodology, with plans
to apply it retrospectively to active specifications like VC. The
participants also discussed a new confidence method proposal from Amir,
agreeing to invite him to present it to the group.
Details

*VCWG Charter Update*: Phil Archer provided an update on proposed
changes to the VCWG charter. Ivan Herman confirmed that any significant
changes would require re-voting by all charter members, potentially
delaying the charter's effective start date.
-

*"Holder Binding" vs. "Confidence Method"*:
- The group revisited the term "holder binding," with attendees agreeing
it was never an accurate or functional term.
- Denken Chen proposed clarifying how the "confidence method"
improves confidence, acknowledging its use in other frameworks like the
EU's EUDI Wallet.
- Ted Thibodeau Jr. argued that "holder binding" is inaccurate as
there's no technical way to enforce who holds or presents a credential,
suggesting "authorized holder" or "authorized presenter" as more precise
terms.
- Joe Andrieu and Manu Sporny clarified that the "confidence method"
is about increasing confidence in a subject's attributes and can occur
independently of presentation, not just binding a credential to a holder.
- Brent Zundel cautioned against broadening the scope of confidence
methods too widely, suggesting a focus on confidence in the relationship
between the presenter and the subject for tractability.
-

*Threat Modeling Introduction*:
- Joe Andrieu introduced a new threat modeling guide developed with W3C
security lead Simone.
- The goal is to integrate threat modeling into the security
considerations sections of all W3C specifications, with plans to apply it
retrospectively to active specifications like DID v1.1 and VC.
- The process involves creating diagrams to identify threats and then
describing responses. Different profiles of a system (e.g., DID
resolution
with different resolvers) can have their own diagrams and threat models.
-

*Amir's Confidence Method Proposal*:
- The group discussed a detailed proposal from an invited expert named
Amir, who focuses on post-quantum security and zero-knowledge proofs.
- While acknowledging the complexity and significant effort required
for Amir's proposal, participants agreed it was valuable to hear him
present it.
- Ivan Herman highlighted the need for careful vocabulary management
within the JSON-LD space when incorporating new terms from such
proposals.
- Joe Andrieu will reach out to Amir to schedule a presentation to
the group.

Suggested next steps

- Joe Andrieu will put together a threat model for the confidence
method, aiming to collaborate with the render method team.
- Joe Andrieu will draft revised introductory and abstract text for the
VC specification for Phil Archer's review.
- Manu Sporny will share Amir's email address with Joe Andrieu.
- Joe Andrieu will contact Amir, with Denken Chen CC'd, to arrange a
presentation of his proposal to the group.

Text:
https://meet.w3c-ccg.org/archives/w3c-ccg-vcwg-spec-refinement-2026-02-25.md

HTML:
https://meet.w3c-ccg.org/archives/w3c-ccg-vcwg-spec-refinement-2026-02-25.html

Video:
https://meet.w3c-ccg.org/archives/w3c-ccg-vcwg-spec-refinement-2026-02-25.mp4
統 Notes

Feb 25, 2026
VCWG Spec Refinement

Attachments VCWG Spec Refinement
<https://www.google.com/calendar/event?eid=aWtmZW5kamtsZWxmMnZvbTdrYmZlMTlhbXJfMjAyNjAyMjVUMTYwMDAwWiBtZWV0aW5nc0B3M2MtY2NnLm9yZw>

Meeting records Transcript <?tab=t.lfu6r2apcqi0> Recording
<https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QFxDiiYmxkZ3-Sl6NGmIEHH5SyitU3Nx/view?usp=drive_web>
Summary

Joe Andrieu, Denken Chen, Manu Sporny, Phil Archer, Ivan Herman, Ted
Thibodeau Jr., and Brent Zundel discussed the new verifiable credential
working group charter and the need to go back to all voters due to proposed
changes, which Ivan Herman confirmed would delay the charter's start. The
group revisited the term "holder binding," with Denken Chen proposing
clarification on how the "confidence method" improves confidence, while Ted
Thibodeau Jr., Joe Andrieu, and Manu Sporny argued that "holder binding"
was inaccurate and that the "confidence method" raises confidence in a
subject's attributes beyond just presentation. Finally, the participants
agreed on the need to initiate a threat model for the confidence
specification and decided that Joe Andrieu should invite Amir to present
their proposed confidence method to the group in a future meeting.
Details

*Initial Discussion and Agenda Setting*: Joe Andrieu opened the meeting
and thanked attendees for being on time, noting the expected absence of
Ivonne and Manu Sporny. Denken Chen suggested starting with the "holder
binding" topic as it seemed like an easier item to tackle first. Manu
Sporny briefly raised awareness about discussions regarding the new
verifiable credential working group charter and pointed attendees toward
the related documents, although they agreed not to discuss it at length
during this meeting (00:00:00 <#00:00:00>).
-

*Verifiable Credential Charter Update*: Phil Archer provided a quick
update on the new verifiable credential working group charter, noting that
changes had been proposed, including one stemming from a recent call with
Carolyn Bernier and others. Phil Archer indicated that due to the political
complexity and necessary careful treading, they believe it is likely the
proposed addition will be included as a tentative deliverable (00:04:57
<#00:04:57>). Ivan Herman confirmed that adding the changes would
necessitate going back to all voters to look at the revised charter and
cast their vote again, which will delay the new charter窶冱 starting point (
00:06:04 <#00:06:04>).
-

*Revisiting the Term "Holder Binding"*: Denken Chen brought up the issue
of holder binding, noting that the term has been used elsewhere,
particularly in the European Union Digital Identity (EUDI) Wallet's
architecture framework. Denken Chen proposed clarifying how the concept of
"confidence" improves through mechanisms defined in their spec, while
acknowledging the external use of the term "holder binding" (00:07:12
<#00:07:12>).
-

*Critique of Terminology (Holder Binding vs. Confidence Method)*: Ted
Thibodeau Jr. argued that "holder binding" was never an accurate or
functional term, as they have never had a way to enforce that only a
specific entity can hold or present a credential. Ted Thibodeau Jr. also
expressed concern that "confidence method" might be doing a similar
disservice and suggested that "authorized holder" or "authorized presenter"
might be more accurate terms for the desired functionality (00:08:55
<#00:08:55>). Joe Andrieu and Manu Sporny agreed that "holder binding"
was never an accurate term and suggested that the specification should
strongly explain why they are not using the term and how the "confidence
method" differs, possibly in the terminology or security consideration
sections (00:12:04 <#00:12:04>).
-

*Understanding the Scope of Confidence Method*: Joe Andrieu explained
that the confidence method is not solely about presentation, giving the
example of a marriage certificate where the method could be used to
increase confidence that the person they are talking to in real-time is the
officient listed in the VC from two years prior (00:12:04 <#00:12:04>).
Manu Sporny agreed, stating that the method is about raising confidence in
a subject, and it does not have to happen at the time of presentation. Ted
Thibodeau Jr. clarified that the increased confidence is in *something*,
which could be any of the attributes or claims spelled out in the VC, such
as the identity of the officient (00:14:29 <#00:14:29>).
-

*Issuer Assurance vs. Verifier Confidence*: Phil Archer highlighted a
perceived blurring between the current discussion on confidence method (how
a verifier ensures they are interacting with the subject) and the separate
work on verified issuers (how the issuer ensures they are issuing to the
correct person) (00:21:03 <#00:21:03>). Joe Andrieu clarified that the
confidence method is focused on the verifier increasing their confidence
that the subject of the VC is the same entity in some other context, with
the issuer providing a hint to facilitate this (00:30:23 <#00:30:23>).
Brent Zundel noted that while allowing confidence methods to cover any
attribute could be useful, limiting the scope to confidence in some
relationship between the presenter and the subject would likely make
producing the specification easier (00:28:04 <#00:28:04>).
-

*Capturing Off-Record Discussion*: Ted Thibodeau Jr. suggested that
content from the meeting's chat block, which contains side discussions,
should be copied and pasted manually into the relevant issue or Pull
Request (PR) for context, if contributors agree (00:32:35 <#00:32:35>).
Joe Andrieu acknowledged the many good comments in the chat but noted the
difficulty in capturing them without permission, as the chat is often
considered off-the-record, creating a catch-22. Joe Andrieu requested that
attendees who want their chat comments included in the documentation should
separately add them to the relevant issue (00:35:11 <#00:35:11>).
-

*Introduction to Threat Modeling*: Joe Andrieu introduced a threat
modeling guide developed with Simone, the W3C security lead, with the goal
of improving security consideration sections across the W3C (00:39:31
<#00:39:31>). The objective is for every W3C specification to have a
threat model at the heart of its security considerations, applying this
retrospectively to active specs like DID v1.1 and VCs (00:40:31
<#00:40:31>). Denken Chen supported starting a threat model for the
confidence specification, viewing it as a risk assessment measurement where
increasing confidence decreases risk (00:42:48 <#00:42:48>).
-

*Threat Modeling Process and Scope*: Joe Andrieu outlined the threat
modeling process: creating a diagram, capturing threats using that picture,
and then describing responses to those threats (00:44:17 <#00:44:17>).
Joe Andrieu explained that different profiles of the system, such as DID
resolution or BTCR2, can have separate diagrams and threat models, even if
they share vocabulary (00:45:45 <#00:45:45>). Denken Chen agreed that
they will ultimately have a similar diagram to describe the different risks
when people are using the confidence method in their spec (00:47:55
<#00:47:55>).
-

*Review of Amir's Proposed Confidence Method*: The group discussed a
long post from Amir proposing a new type of confidence method, noting that
Amir is a talented invited expert focused on post-quantum security and
zero-knowledge proofs (00:50:33 <#00:50:33>) (00:53:26 <#00:53:26>).
Manu Sporny noted the proposal requires enormous effort and may be better
suited for future development, but they should absolutely hear Amir out (
00:52:09 <#00:52:09>). Ivan Herman cautioned that the proposal involves
extensive use of JSON and new terms that would require serious vocabulary
work following the methodology for JSON-LD space (00:54:33 <#00:54:33>).
-

*Next Steps for Amir's Proposal and Meeting Scheduling*: Joe Andrieu
concluded that the next step is to invite Amir to present a coherent
narrative of their proposal to the group, which could determine if parts of
it are leverageable or if it should be treated as a future confidence
method. Manu Sporny and Phil Archer assisted in finding Amir's contact
information so Joe Andrieu could reach out (00:57:48 <#00:57:48>). The
next meeting is scheduled for the 18th, as there is a Render Methods
meeting next week and a full Verifiable Credential Working Group meeting
the week after (00:59:04 <#00:59:04>).

Suggested next steps

- [ ] Joe Andrieu will put together a threat model for confidence method
with the intention of bubbling that up and collaborating with the render
method folks.
- [ ] Joe Andrieu will get some spec text for the rev of the
introduction and abstract for Phil Archer to review.
- [ ] Manu Sporny will send Amir's email address to Joe Andrieu.
- [ ] Joe Andrieu will reach out to Amir and CC Denken Chen to get him
to come and talk to the group about his proposal.

*You should review Gemini's notes to make sure they're accurate. Get tips
and learn how Gemini takes notes
<https://support.google.com/meet/answer/14754931>*

*Please provide feedback about using Gemini to take notes in a short
survey.
<https://google.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9vK3UZEaIQKKE7A?confid=reu1MiJYgFqd_dBmzrKJDxISOAIIigIgABgBCA&detailid=standard>*
当 Transcript

Feb 25, 2026
VCWG Spec Refinement - Transcript 00:00:00 {#00:00:00}

*Joe Andrieu:* Howdy folks.
*Phil Archer:* Good luck jump.
*Joe Andrieu:* Hey Phil. Thank you all for being on time. I do appreciate
it. I see the two regulars we might be expecting. Ivonne and Manu aren't
going to be here. Um is there anyone else we're explicitly expecting? Um,
Denon, do you know if Air might be able to make it or do he only know him
through his um issue that he posted?
*Denken Chen:* I don't know.
*Joe Andrieu:* Okay, we'll give folks another minute and then get started.
All right. So, Denin, um, when you and I chatted yesterday, we talked about
a few things you proposed that we bring up. Um, which item would you like
to tackle first?
*Denken Chen:* And I think the holder binding should be an easier one. We
can start it from that. Okay. Menu, please.
*Manu Sporny:* Just a real quick uh agenda plus. Um there is some
discussion going around the new verifiable credential working group charter
and I just wanted to kind of point folks towards that.

00:04:57 {#00:04:57}

*Manu Sporny:* Phil, I don't want to overstep uh and Joe and Denan uh
overstep, you know, I mean it's public, right? So, I'm I'm hoping to just
draw people's attention to it and then we don't need to talk about it at
length. Looking for guidance from the chairs. Phil, you first and then Joe
and Denin on uh how to talk about uh proposals.
*Phil Archer:* Uh um so very quickly because we shouldn't be taking up this
call which is about the confidence method. Um Manu the call you had
yesterday with Carolyn Bernier who you and I know but many people may not
know she's like one of the very important person in the digital product
passport world and Casten um and Susanna um has had a lot of pigeons
flying. I'm pretty sure we're landed on exactly what you've written. I
haven't read the sorry on the thing on the PR. I haven't read the PR yet,
but I think it is very likely that we will be adding it this in as a
tentative deliverable, but I'm having 17,000 conversations around it
because the politics of it are enormous.

00:06:04 {#00:06:04}

*Phil Archer:* Um, and so I need to tread very carefully and I'm constantly
having to change hats between my role here as uh Brent's co-chair and this
group which has a different outlook to my day job one and so I'm balancing
a lot of things here but yes it's there and um Ivan will guide us here but
I think it is very likely that with that addition and the other one we may
have to go back to everybody and say you know you voted for this thing
could you please have a look again because we changed it. Could you cast
your vote again? I'm afraid that's um uh I think that's inevitable at this
stage.
*Ivan Herman:* That's that's a requirement that we do that indeed
*Phil Archer:* And does that mean then that the deadline then gets put back
because currently the deadline is Friday,
*Ivan Herman:* for the current reviews. Yes. But then then when we have the
PRs and we have accepted them then we will have
*Phil Archer:* right?
*Ivan Herman:* about I don't remember I think it's a it's an email contact
to all voters of 10 days or maybe two weeks I don't remember exactly but
it's it's about that.

00:07:12 {#00:07:12}

*Ivan Herman:* So it will it will delay the new charter's uh starting point.
*Phil Archer:* Okay.
*Ivan Herman:* That's
*Phil Archer:* Thank you. I I don't want to hold up this call which is not
about this topic but thank you manu. Yes, it's happening. You will hear
about it. We will talk about it. Yeah. Thanks man. Eyes
*Joe Andrieu:* Cool. Thank Thank you, Manu. I appreciate that you brought
it up. I agree. Let's not talk about it now, but thanks for that link. Um,
it's an interesting conversation to be had. Okay. Uh, Dan, back to our
issues. Do you want to talk about number 25? The holder
*Denken Chen:* Okay.
*Joe Andrieu:* binding
*Denken Chen:* Yes. Uh for the holder binding things, I know that uh there
are folks concerning about using the word binding and that's why we move
away from using the word binding uh but use confidence instead. And uh my
point has been always that the holder binding terms has been used elsewhere
particularly in the EU in the Europe UDI uh UD wallet their architecture
framework and I think it's a good thing for us to clarify clearly about our
thoughts about how confidence can be increased through different mechanism
that we will define

00:08:55 {#00:08:55}

*Denken Chen:* in our confidence spec uh but just include like there are
some somewhere else using a turn holder binding uh but here's how we think
to improve the confidence in the beginning of the paragraphs uh let's my
focus on this okay so first I think t is the first one preset. Go
*Ted Thibodeau Jr:* Yeah.
*Denken Chen:* ahead.
*Ted Thibodeau Jr:* Um, so holder binding was never an accurate term in any
sense. We we never have had a way to enforce that only this entity or these
entities are allowed to hold this spec or present it. It it's it's just
never been a thing. So the folks who brought that terminology to other
specification bodies never brought a useful thing. It was never something
that we defined, never something that we made functional, never useful. Um
I'm afraid that confidence method is doing a similar disservice to people
trying to use it. Now confidence in what are you applying this method in
order to increase your confidence? Um I think what is trying to happen or
trying to be made happen is authorized holder or authorized presenter which
is more accurate because anybody can hold this sequence of bites.

00:10:45

*Ted Thibodeau Jr:* I can give it to somebody on a floppy or in a QR code
or whatever else and they can hold it however long they want to and it
doesn't matter whether they are authorized or not until the moment that
they try and present it make use of it. And even then, it may not matter
that it's passed through a hundred hands on route to that presentation if
the final holder is listed as an authorized presenter. And I think that is
what is actually trying to be made use of is an authorized presenter. I
think that's the thing that's trying to be held. I'm not certain because
people keep gravitating to these old terms that have never properly been
defined and still don't function even in the places where they've tried to
put a definition on them. There there is nothing that makes me drop a VC
that I'm not a listed holder of. Um I think that's it for now.
*Joe Andrieu:* Okay, I'll go ahead and go. Um, I agree that uh the term
holder binding was never an accurate term.

00:12:04 {#00:12:04}

*Joe Andrieu:* And so I think the the point of having a section on holder
binding which may not be a top level section um but to explain why we
aren't using that term and why confidence method is a different way to
think about it. Um I I think you're close Ted with your thinking about what
the semantics mean. However, I think it goes a little bit further with
confidence method in that you don't have to be presenting. I could have a,
for example, a verifiable credential for a marriage certificate that has
the officient two spouses and two witnesses. And it it may be that this was
submitted at some point to a school to establish parentage or something
like that, however these are used in civic society. And then later someone
else says, "Hey, this was the officient at this wedding. I want to go find
I I want to verify that that person is the person I think they are and I
can use this confidence method that may have been included for the
officient so that in a separate ceremony that is not necessarily the
presentation of that VC we could increase our confidence that the person
we're talking to in real time is that person who was in the VC that we got
two years ago.

00:13:17

*Joe Andrieu:* So that's it. Uh Manu, go ahead.
*Manu Sporny:* Yeah, plus one to uh those uh uh modifications, Joe. Uh so
again, plus one to what Ted said. Uh holder binding was never a good term.
We told people that fairly early on. People did not heed the warnings and
now we're in a position where we should probably say something uh more a
little more strong in the specification. We can do that in the terminology
section uh of the specification as option one. Option two is to put it down
in the security consideration section to very clearly let people know that
holder binding is not a thing. Like it is not it is not something that you
can you can um uh do uh due to uh proxying and and other things of that
nature, right? Um, you can never bind something uh to a holder. Uh, okay.
So, so that's, you know, item one. Um, item two is I agree with Joe's uh uh
modulations to what you were saying, Ted.

00:14:29 {#00:14:29}

*Manu Sporny:* Uh, I don't think it's about presentation. It is about
raising confidence in a subject and it does not have to happen at the time
of presentation. It can happen at at some uh other time. Um, so I do think
that there's work to be done there. Um, uh, and just acknowledging, uh,
that that's it.
*Ted Thibodeau Jr:* So just to clarify um not necessarily in confidence in
the identity of the presenter, but it it's a method of increasing
confidence in something. It could be any of the attributes spelled out in
the VC. Um, in Joe's example, it it would be confidence in the identity of
the officient and the method used to increase confidence of the identity of
the efficient. But it's still not about the subject nor any holder nor
right that there it's not generically increased confidence. It is
explicitly increased confidence in something and I think in that sense it
could be applied to anything within the VC. I as an issuer have increased
confidence in my stating that this is the subject of my DC.

00:16:10

*Ted Thibodeau Jr:* I it gets really hanky really quickly, but that's I
think where we're going. Uh where people are going in in every discussion
of it. I think they're all going in the same direction, but nobody seems to
be actually saying that's the direction they're going in. Unless I'm
missing it. That's a
*Joe Andrieu:* Anken, I think you're
*Denken Chen:* Okay, thank you. Um to be clear like as a as a product that
uh
*Joe Andrieu:* next.
*Denken Chen:* manual said that we can clear some uh clear things in the
terminology sections. Um I I just would like to have a section or some ways
in our spec to distinguish or response to what other specification has been
used in the terms like we are actually answering the same questions but in
a more accurate and uh reasonable ways. So for example um in the UDA their
architecture reference work they use the turn use uh the holder binding in
the beginning most of most of the time and then switch to user binding
which I think is even all even more awful world because you you cannot
really bind to any holder and not user because there's No device can be
really bind to any specific user at all.

00:18:04

*Denken Chen:* Um but there's also another word device binding using in
their spec. So there are three things there are holder binding there are
user binding there are device binding which I think uh device binding could
be the only reasonable way. For example, in our first goal of this spec, we
are going to include the O and the facial image. So for the O, it's similar
to device binding. It's binding to a crypto cryptography material. And for
facial image, it's related to user, but it's not binding to user, right?
You can like using face recognition to improve the confidence like the
holder the presenter is the holder or the subject etc. So we can make it
really really clear of these terms in our spec um that will really help for
anywhere in the world implementing digital identity. Um in our case uh
during our internal discussion we talk about this a lot. Uh how do we
ensure the presenter is the subject or can we really do that is is it
really tech technical doable we can describe it really clearly in our spec
and that's my initial motivation for this spec.

00:19:47

*Denken Chen:* Thank you.
*Manu Sporny:* Uh yeah, uh there's a lot of chatter happening in the text
that's not going to show up in the minutes. Um so just vocalizing something
that Dave said, uh which is uh we're talking about raising confidence
*Joe Andrieu:* f***.
*Manu Sporny:* in any subject in the VC. Uh and Phil is saying, well, yeah,
it's really it might be any claim. Um I think there's that's a good
direction to go in. Uh I think maybe uh well I'll let Joe clarify what he
meant but um I think that's the direction we want to go in uh here is that
you're raising confidence in one of the things identified uh and you know
potential claims um associated claims in the uh in the in the VC. Um, that's
*Joe Andrieu:* Okay, thanks Benny. Um I I don't think it's at the claim
level and I think um Dave's comment actually spoke to it pretty directly.
Um we're talking about confidence in the subject. Confidence in the
predicate or confidence in the object is something actually that would be
very hard for us to express.

00:21:03 {#00:21:03}

*Joe Andrieu:* Um maybe RDF star could let us start to do that kind of
thing. But the way the architecture works, we have an ID and we have a
confidence method. And what we're saying is something about that subject.
And so the the the pattern that we're talking about is is the subject of
this VC the same entity in some other context. And it may be that there's a
there's a signature on something that's posted to a public record. It could
be an interactive session with someone um after the fact. But what you're
trying to do is say, oh, the subject in this VC, that's this other person
in this other context. And I think it's not about the rest of the claims or
the rest of the components of the claims just about tying the subject um
correlating them from one context to another. The first context being the
VC, the other context being wherever else that confidence method happens to
be exercised.
*Phil Archer:* This discussion for me highlights the um problem I have is
that the in my head there is a blurring between what we're talking about
here and the completely separate um work being done on verified issuers.

00:22:10

*Phil Archer:* So, and and it goes back to something that happens quite a
lot in this community, which is that for reasons I fully understand, of
course, a lot of this community is motivated by um the personal credentials
of, you know, of an individual. the world I work in, we're about we're
talking about credentials for businesses and for inanimate objects where
the this is something that my organization is going through. We are
improving dramatically in some cases the way that we know our customers. Um
in some parts of the world if you want a GS1 identifier, you turn up and
your credit card works and there's a GS1 identifier. End of. In other parts
of the world, you want a GS1 identifier and they check the local business
register and they check this and they check that and if you pass all that
test, then you can have a GS1 identifier. And that's that's an issue that
we're handling. But that speaks to the issue of if I give you if I GS1 give
you a credential, it is a process I'm going through.

00:23:19

*Phil Archer:* It's not asking for a biometric this or a photograph of that
or a blood sample. It's my own process that I followed that gives me
confidence that I'm issuing it to somebody I know. Now, maybe that belongs
in the verified issuer spec rather than here, but for me, the discussion
that's going on right now blurs that line between those two things.
*Ted Thibodeau Jr:* So, I'm pretty sure I'm next on the queue. Um you what
you said Joe uh
*Joe Andrieu:* Go ahead, Ted.
*Ted Thibodeau Jr:* it has never matched my understanding that this
confidence method thing is about the subject or subjects of VC who has
confidence in what again it it it just doesn't lie. Now, if you put the
subject in a statement where you say the subject has confidence method XYZ,
then I as an issuer have used XYZ confidence method to confirm that the
subject that I'm speaking of is this subject. And then I say whatever else
about that subject. There might be blank nodes involved that collect some
number of predicates associated with a subject and that blank note has a
confidence method associated with it and that's where I got all those
attributes.

00:25:00

*Ted Thibodeau Jr:* But here there is an explicit association of the
confidence method with the predicates and that's what I've been arguing
for. is that confidence method could be applied to any predicate or number
of predicates in the VC. And that confidence method is how I as the issuer
assured myself that I was speaking about this entity and that these were
the attribute values that are associated. It it it can't be about the
recipient. It can't be about the initial holder cuz that is it's purely
about holding some series of electrons and that can be multiply copied and
passed around and nobody knows. The useful thing in my mind is being able
to say somehow that Only holder X whom you check that they have these
attributes to ensure your confidence that it is holder X is authorized to
present it because that's what's useful about a VC is presenting it. I I
don't I I I'm trying to see how the other things would have value and I'm
not seeing it except at present at presentation time.