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
(separating a discussion started in #156 (comment) into a new issue)
On a May-14-2024 WG call, there seems to be a rough consensus that transaction_data should be outside the input_descriptor objects and should contain reference to the input_descriptors that are requesting credentials to which the content of a transaction_data can be bound to (instead of putting transaction data obejct inside an input_descriptor, which was an original idea). This updated approach would prevent duplication of the same transaction data object across multiple input descriptors when the verifier is asking to "bind transaction_data to credential A or credential B".
opening an issue to make sure there is a consensus on this direction, expecting to be able to close this issue relatively soon.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
(separating a discussion started in #156 (comment) into a new issue)
On a May-14-2024 WG call, there seems to be a rough consensus that
transaction_data
should be outside theinput_descriptor
objects and should contain reference to the input_descriptors that are requesting credentials to which the content of atransaction_data
can be bound to (instead of putting transaction data obejct inside an input_descriptor, which was an original idea). This updated approach would prevent duplication of the same transaction data object across multiple input descriptors when the verifier is asking to "bindtransaction_data
to credential A or credential B".opening an issue to make sure there is a consensus on this direction, expecting to be able to close this issue relatively soon.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: