Re: [w3ctag/design-reviews] WG New Spec: VCALM v1.0 (Issue #1273)

hlflanagan left a comment (w3ctag/design-reviews#1273)

Thanks for the review request. Our main concern is whether VCALM enables interoperability across independently developed systems or primarily within deployments that have agreed on a particular set of technologies. We have several related questions and requests:

- **Interoperability and configuration:** What shared protocols, query languages, credential formats, DID methods, status mechanisms, and authorization mechanisms can implementations rely on for each conformance class? Please identify any required baseline and make clear where an additional profile is necessary. Also, please explain how a generic client learns which options an instance requires or prohibits.

- **Scope and architecture:** The architecture diagram is not clear. Please mark which interfaces VCALM standardizes in the architecture diagram and connect them to the conformance classes, including service clients. Resolve tentative scope statements and undefined components such as “Storage Coordinators.” The diagram should also have accessible text and a description of the relationships it depicts.

- **Wallet selection and delegation:** In a Web interaction, which component discovers available wallets and lets the user choose one? Please clarify what browser or platform integration is assumed. When an interaction on one domain delegates an exchange to another, which identity does the wallet authenticate, which identity does the user see, and what binds the presentation to its intended recipient?

- **Complete interface definitions:** Several interfaces leave independent implementations needing to infer behavior. Please specify callback payloads, response bodies, authorization action mappings, URL resolution against an instance’s base URL, and error behavior for missing required fields or identifier collisions. Credential and presentation objects should have explicit normative conformance requirements; linked binary content and hashes likewise need a defined mechanism.

- **Verification results:** Please clarify what `verified: true` guarantees, particularly when status or validity concerns are reported as warnings, and which acceptance decisions remain the caller’s responsibility.

These clarifications would help us assess both the interoperability claims and the division of responsibility between VCALM, its implementations, and the surrounding Web platform.

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/1273#issuecomment-6221355956
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/1273/6221355956@github.com>