Simplify abstract and move credential types to introduction. #82
Conversation
msporny
requested review from
marcoscaceres,
samuelgoto,
RByers and
timcappalli
as code owners
| <li> | ||
| a driver's license issued by a testing facility | ||
| </li> | ||
| <li> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm hesitant to include these at the moment because we haven't really looked at supporting these and I don't think any implementer supports these yet... though these could be supported, I'm worried about set expectations.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I moved many of these examples down from the text that already existed in the abstract; I was attempting to preserve text that already existed. If you want to remove it, that's fine, though the utility of the API becomes less interesting for a variety of stakeholders that are watching this work closely.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
+1 to marcos. I understand you just moved the text, but mentioning passports in this file, either here or in the intro could be sensitive.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reduced the list down to the only credential type we have consensus on right now: 06271a7. Preserved the full list in #85 (comment).
index.html
Outdated
| <li> | ||
| a traveler's boarding pass issued by an airline | ||
| </li> | ||
| <li> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This probably falls more on FedCM...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Same as comment in: https://github.com/WICG/digital-identities/pull/82/files#r1499358644
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reduced the list down to the only credential type we have consensus on right now: 06271a7. Preserved the full list in #85 (comment).
index.html
Outdated
| <li> | ||
| an employee identification card issued by a company | ||
| </li> | ||
| <li> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This falls outside the scope, I think... we want just credentials that related to people.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Again, I was just preserving text that already existed:
If we want to put this out of scope, we can do that, but I know that this is a use case that is of interest for a number of stakeholders that are interested in using this API.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
how is what in scope being decided/enforced? meaning, will the browser look into the request from the verifier and make a decision whether a requested credential type should be requested from the wallet or not? that sounds like a lot of discretion on the browser api...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Right now, I think it will be determined by the supported request protocol/format/query. That's not to say that it won't eventually support a larger set of things, but the browser might get a peek at what's being requested (at least for some formats).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reduced the list down to the only credential type we have consensus on right now: 06271a7. Preserved the full list in #85 (comment).
index.html
Outdated
| <li> | ||
| a healthcare record issued by a hospital, and | ||
| </li> | ||
| <li> | ||
| a professional license issued by a trade association. | ||
| </li> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Same with these two... these might end up being supported... but they are a bit murky right now.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
First one is same as comment in: https://github.com/WICG/digital-identities/pull/82/files#r1499358644
2nd item is a use case that is discussed often in the Verifiable Credentials for Education community. /cc @dmitrizagidulin @longpd @kayaelle
Generally speaking, I'm not suggesting we keep/remove any to any of these examples... wherever consensus lands is fine with me. I'm just noting that this text already existed and I didn't want to remove it entirely -- was meaning this PR to be a purely editorial PR.
If you want to make some concrete change suggestions for addition/removal, I could process them. We'd need to hear from others... perhaps the way to go about this is to see if there would be any objections to removing credential types? ... or, the other way to go about it is to see which credential types we have consensus to support.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Right, I wouldn't read anything into "text was already there", as it's mostly just my initial ramblings.... which are now reflected back at me 🤦
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reduced the list down to the only credential type we have consensus on right now: 06271a7. Preserved the full list in #85 (comment).
| @@ -64,6 +62,39 @@ <h2> | |||
| <p> | |||
| TBW | |||
| </p> | |||
| <p id="credential-type-examples"> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
in general, share a lot of the same sentiment as expressed by @marcoscaceres. One suggestion would be to remove any specific references to the credential types in this PR, and than re-add them once we have more agreement in issue #85
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reduced the list down to the only credential type we have consensus on right now: 06271a7. Preserved the full list in #85 (comment).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
probably better to have a discussion in issue #85 first to understand what kind of credential types implementers are interested in and discuss if there will be a list of supported/unsupported credential types and if so, how supported credential types will be enforced...
msporny
force-pushed
the
update-abstract
branch
2 times, most recently
from
06271a7 to
1244a0c
Compare
Co-authored-by: Ted Thibodeau Jr <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Ted Thibodeau Jr <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Kristina <[email protected]>
msporny
force-pushed
the
update-abstract
branch
from
1244a0c to
30eea7f
Compare
|
I've applied suggested changes from @marcoscaceres @Sakurann and @TallTed. Please re-review. |
index.html
Outdated
| access to, and present, a digital credential such as a driver's license, | ||
| a government-issued identification card, or [=credential type |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it reads better with all plural (or with all singular, but that rephrasing would be harder to write). Also, I think this API is meant to allow presenting multiple credentials (or selective-disclosure portions thereof), so and/or.
| access to, and present, a digital credential such as a driver's license, | |
| a government-issued identification card, or [=credential type | |
| access to, and present, digital credentials such as driver's licenses, | |
| government-issued identification cards, and/or [=credential type |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
My only reservation was that generally people only have one driver's license, passport etc., but it's certainly possible that they could have multiple of other things.
I don't mind though... @msporny, I'll leave the choice up to you.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I attempted to address @marcoscaceres and @TallTed's concerns in 100094d.
Co-authored-by: sam goto <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: sam goto <[email protected]>
|
@samuelgoto wrote:
@marcoscaceres wrote:
I've applied all of @samuelgoto, @TallTed, and @marcoscaceres change suggestions. We're good to merge here if the Editors agree. |
|
Amazing! thanks so much @msporny for your time with this! |
This PR performs a few editorial updates to the Abstract and Introduction in an attempt to simplify the former and make the latter convey more details around the types of credentials that are contemplated for use with the API.
Preview | Diff