You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Hi all,
Ref #135
The vc-data-model has a Content Integrity Protection section with some recommendations https://www.w3.org/TR/vc-data-model/#content-integrity-protection. I am coming across some scenarios where the clients may prefer to host the referenced artifact - whether it is a credential or an image / document, and IPFS may not always be appropriate. I was looking at the HASHLINK reference.
I see that the https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-sporny-hashlink-07 seems to be an expired internet draft. I was curious to know where that effort is headed and if it is still the recommendation for the vc-data-model.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hi, I'm the Editor of that independent draft... the work continues, but there isn't strong enough demand to standardize it at this point in time. I'll keep it going, but using it at this point is experimental.
It's not ready to be added in any sort of normative capacity in this specification, so we're marking it pending close for now, we might revisit it during the VC 3.0 work.
Hi all,
Ref #135
The vc-data-model has a Content Integrity Protection section with some recommendations https://www.w3.org/TR/vc-data-model/#content-integrity-protection. I am coming across some scenarios where the clients may prefer to host the referenced artifact - whether it is a credential or an image / document, and IPFS may not always be appropriate. I was looking at the HASHLINK reference.
I see that the https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-sporny-hashlink-07 seems to be an expired internet draft. I was curious to know where that effort is headed and if it is still the recommendation for the vc-data-model.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: