Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Link receipts together to show when one receipt supersedes another #13

Open
RichardGomer opened this issue Jul 1, 2019 · 2 comments
Open
Labels
category-needed New item that has not been categorized yet

Comments

@RichardGomer
Copy link

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
One quality of consent is that it must be mutable - i.e. it can change. At present, there's no way to indicate if a consent receipt supersedes a previous one, which will make it difficult for wallets etc. to accurately determine the current state of an individuals' consent based just on the receipt trail.

Describe the solution you'd like
There should be a way for a receipt to indicate which receipt(s) it supercedes. If each receipt was given a unique ID of some kind (e.g. a GUID plus issuing domain) then later receipts could indicate which receipt(s) they supercede in a new field.

This would effectively build up a linked-list of receipts, showing how consent has changed over time. Ideally, receipts would list more than just the last one in the chain, so that if a single receipt goes missing the chains don't become broken. It's probably feasible, in most cases, to list ALL of the prior receipts.

Describe alternatives you've considered

Additional context
This imposes some additional semantics on the receipt; what if Q supercedes P but doesn't contain all of the same purposes? Are those purposes revoked or just left 'as-is'? I will file another issue for the latter.

@JamesOTL
Copy link

JamesOTL commented Jul 1, 2019

I support Richard's proposal.

@andrewhughes3000 andrewhughes3000 added the category-needed New item that has not been categorized yet label Jul 4, 2019
@crtahlin
Copy link

I support the general reference idea.
But, in our specific case & the context of blockchain, we are using different identifiers for tracking the chain of consents.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
category-needed New item that has not been categorized yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants