[Openid-specs-ab] Verifiable presentation question

Tom Jones thomasclinganjones at gmail.com
Thu May 13 06:25:20 UTC 2021

Only one minor nit with DW. The PE claims not to be a protocol, but as
David c points out, it really is as it shows data used across time.

thx ..Tom (mobile)

On Wed, May 12, 2021, 11:13 PM David Waite <david at alkaline-solutions.com>

> > On May 12, 2021, at 9:06 PM, Tom Jones <thomasclinganjones at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > This needs to be unpacked a little.
> >
> > 1. there is no VP spec, there is only a VC spec.
> > 2. There is no case where a naked VC should ever go to a verifier - aka
> relying party.
> There are scenarios, as the VC data model use cases are very broad.
> Presentations are optional within the VC data model. The VC data model says
> that directly sharing a credential makes it a presentation.
> A credential without a verifiable presentation just doesn’t have
> confirmation. If I found a passport laying in the street that doesn’t make
> the information less valid. My ability to use the information goes down
> because I’m not interacting with the person it belongs to.
> > I would state that even stronger. Naked creds should NEVER appear in an
> OpenID protocol.
> We likely do not have need to present credentials without confirmation to
> a verifier - you don’t need any challenge -response, you might as well just
> host it as a file someplace.
> However, there are efforts to define protocol to retrieve claims for
> aggregation from a claims provider, and VCs from an issuer acting as an OP
> to a RP acting as a holder. We’ll. Need to define a way to get credentials
> before we will be able to successfully present them.
> > 3. But there is a case where a simple VC can be encapsulated inside a
> VP, which really subverts the goals of the spec which is to allow the user
> selective disclosure.
> Selective disclosure is not a hard requirement of VCs or VPs. There are
> systems in production which do not support this.
> > 4. Daniel is working on a PE spec(let) that describes how a request to a
> wallet, with VCs, can be returned as a VP.
> Just to be clear since there was earlier confusion, PE does not define a
> request or response message, nor does it define any protocol.
> > 5. There is no concept worked out in CCG of a user having more than one
> wallet. Which makes the problem of a RP creating a request incomprehensibly
> difficult, if not impossible.
> CHAPI supports multiple wallets simultaneously, but has limitations (such
> as being web-exclusive and being fragile wrt modern browser state
> management)
> -DW
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20210512/afa2f183/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Openid-specs-ab mailing list