Should we comment on "principle"?

[OR13]

Should we define a relationship between principle / entity and the issuer / subject / holder / verifier?

Seems like that would be helpful for people coming with the JWT ecosystem first learning about VCs and the 3 party model.

[Sakurann]

would recommend using issuer / subject / holder / verifier throughout the text, but in the definition put the relationship with OAuth/JWT terms.

For example, in OpenID4VC specs we said

Verifier: The entity that requests, receives and validates Verifiable Presentations. During presentation of Credentials, Verifier acts as an OAuth 2.0 Client towards the Wallet that is acting as an OAuth 2.0 Authorization Server. The Verifier is a specific case of OAuth 2.0 Client, just like Relying Party (RP) in [@OpenID.Core].

[OR13]

@Sakurann I like that text... Can we add normative or informative references to it?

[OR13]

@Sakurann I assigned you : )

[selfissued]

Does this suggestion still seem pertinent or have events passed it by?

[OR13]

Still seems relevant, but I would also be ok closing it.

[selfissued]

Neither of the words "principle" or "principal" occur in the vc-jose-cose spec. (The only use of either in vc-data model is at https://w3c.github.io/vc-data-model/#the-principle-of-data-minimization .) I suspect that means we can close this issue.

[iherman]

The issue was discussed in a meeting on 2023-09-14

• no resolutions were taken

View the transcript

6.12. Should we comment on "principle"? (issue vc-jose-cose#35)

See github issue vc-jose-cose#35.

Michael Jones: this is terminology. we already done a good job in the specs on terminology.

Manu Sporny: +1 to close this issue :).

Brent Zundel: this one is post-cr.
� any objections to close?
� no objections, closing after script has been generated.