Thanks for the comment. The I-D describes how to add VCs as a certificate type
in TLS while maintaining the interoperability with other certificates. The aim
is to move SSI-based authentication from the application layer down to TLS
without changing the way SSI and TLS work. The SSI model (based
Chair hat off,
I'm not sure if authors will agree with this characterization, but I will
give it anyway, and authors can correct me:
Why use VCs?
Because of the CBOR toolchain.
You should comment on if the payload is JSON-LD, if it is, then you lose
most of the value of CBOR in my view.
Why use
Another comment, since you mention Verifiable Credentials, you may be
interested to follow the SPICE WG chartering discussions on various lists:
- https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/spice/about/
OS
On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 7:25 AM Orie Steele
wrote:
> Chair hat off,
>
> I'm not sure if authors
Hi UTA list,
I rarely post here, but I would like to a very individual opinion for
once. Please feel free to ignore.
If you inherit JSON-LD (as part of VC) from W3C, then... why bother? Web
Token Claims in the IETF and JSON-LD fragments in the W3C are a clear
demarcation line between the wor
Hiya,
I had a quick flick look at the draft. ISTM that's
one that'd need processing by the TLS WG and not
UTA. (Even if you disagree with that, you may agree
that it'll be better to give the TLS WG a heads-up
as someone there is bound to dislike this and it'll
be better to know that sooner rathe
Hi Stephen, before contacting UTA WG we have shared the I-D with TLS WG chairs,
and they explained that typically defining a new credential type is not
something that has been of interest to the TLS WG.
@UTA chairs - Could you please advise on the process to follow?
Regards,
AV
> On 20 Feb 2
On 20/02/2024 17:40, Andrea Vesco wrote:
Hi Stephen, before contacting UTA WG we have shared the I-D with TLS WG
chairs, and they explained that typically defining a new credential type
is not something that has been of interest to the TLS WG.
Interesting. Not sure I'd agree with that (not
You are welcome to surface a conversation that has happened on a list such
as UTA with the TLS list.
Having the same conversation at the same time on multiple lists can be
challenging, and or spammy depending on how many IETF lists you have
subscribed to (I am subscribed to more than I should be).
Two other options come to mind:
- bring it to alldispatch at the next IETF
- Discuss it with the SEC AD’s, but note that one is leaving to become IETF
Chair and a new one will start at the next IETF.
From: Uta on behalf of Orie Steele
Date: Tuesday, February 20, 2024 at 2:45 PM
To: Stephen Fa
