Proofs Note

[nadalin]

"No single proof mechanism is currently standardized or recommended for verifiable credentials." This is incorrect as JWS is standardized in IETF and widely used. Suggest rewording this NOTE

[TallTed]

The operative elements in your quoted sentence are "No single ... for verifiable credentials." In other words, we're not picking a winner.

That said, a viable rewording of this sentence might be As discussed in Section <a href="#conformance"></a>, there are multiple viable proof mechanisms, and this specification does not standardize nor recommend any single proof mechanism for use with <a>verifiable credentials</a>. What do you think?

[nadalin]

+1

[burnburn]

WG resolution on 28 May 2019 call:

RESOLUTION: Issue #612 is addressed via PR #614, which rewords the text of concern in a non-normative way. Issue #612 should be closed after 7 days from when the PR was merged.

[nadalin]

So no real interop can take place based upon PR #614

[burnburn]

Your interop concern is being tracked by issue #632. Closing.