Verifier indicating if holder binding is needed or not
Opened this issue · 8 comments
How would a Verifier indicate whether holder binding is needed for a particular requested VC?
This section is limited to explaining various holder binding mechanisms: https://identity.foundation/presentation-exchange/#holder-and-subject-binding
is_holder only allows verifier to indicate whether subject of a VC is the iss of a VP, but does not allow to indicate whether VP is needed or not.
is_holder indicates that the verifier wants proof that the holder of the credential is the subject of the claims presented.
@Sakurann is this answered-enough for now? We can reconsider after VCWG 2.0 institutes something formerly known as holder-binding anyways...
is_holder might also be worth moving to a reserved terms holding pen until there are more concrete implementations to define interop between...
During meeting on 8/24, it is not clear to us what the action is here @Sakurann
Is the question about whether non-VP formats are allowed?
Or does is_holder need to be more explicit in some way?
We can't move forward without your input.
Discussed on today's call. We assume you mean this kind of key binding from the SD-JWT spec? Are there other claim formats that have an equivalent? We have been waiting for the W3C VC2 confidenceMethod stuff to go through... would appreciate an update!
Clarifications needed by March 15; otherwise we will postpone to 3.0
I think the question was, "can a verifier specify how many VPs it is expecting"? In most cases, there will be as many VPs as there are holder keys, but I think microsoft had a use-case where even if the same user key is used for cryptographic key binding, verifier needed the wallet to generate two separate VPs. cc @dangodb