Repository navigation
Consensus on credential request section #24
Description
This issue keeps track of the fact that there is not yet consensus on the credential request section (section 2 at the time of issue creation). Comments on this section can be done here, but will likely result in opening separate more detailed issues for the actual discussion.
Activity
andrewhughes3000 commentedon Aug 31, 2026
F2F meeting discussion:
-- Discussion about how preferences could/should be be expressed to help the wallet better manage the UX
-- @leecam to create issue to discuss how to manage preferences
-- Caution about potential privacy exposures if too much information is provided in the preference description
-- "Purposes" should probably be ecosystem-defined
-- Note that regulated sectors will probably have strong requirements for statement of "purpose"
-- @davidz25 to create an issue for what wallet/platform etc could/should present to the user
-- What should happen if the request includes no data element request? i.e. Does this credential exist in the wallet? Discussion needed. @paulbastian to create an issue. @GarethCOliver to create an issue covering use cases that might need a 'no data element' request.
-- discussion about how a request for particular holder binding mechanisms could be accommodated. @Ryang03 to create an issue.
-- Response Encryption is conditional based on the transmission mechanism used.
elements_dict#48