Verifier indicating if holder binding is needed or not

[Sakurann]

How would a Verifier indicate whether holder binding is needed for a particular requested VC?

This section is limited to explaining various holder binding mechanisms: https://identity.foundation/presentation-exchange/#holder-and-subject-binding is_holder only allows verifier to indicate whether subject of a VC is the iss of a VP, but does not allow to indicate whether VP is needed or not.

[brentzundel]

is_holder indicates that the verifier wants proof that the holder of the credential is the subject of the claims presented.

[dtmcg]

@Sakurann does this address your question

[bumblefudge]

@sakurann is this answered-enough for now? We can reconsider after VCWG 2.0 institutes something formerly known as holder-binding anyways...

[bumblefudge]

is_holder might also be worth moving to a reserved terms holding pen until there are more concrete implementations to define interop between...

[brentzundel]

During meeting on 8/24, it is not clear to us what the action is here @Sakurann Is the question about whether non-VP formats are allowed? Or does is_holder need to be more explicit in some way?

We can't move forward without your input.

[bumblefudge]

Discussed on today's call. We assume you mean this kind of key binding from the SD-JWT spec? Are there other claim formats that have an equivalent? We have been waiting for the W3C VC2 confidenceMethod stuff to go through... would appreciate an update!

[kimdhamilton]

Clarifications needed by March 15; otherwise we will postpone to 3.0

[Sakurann]

I think the question was, "can a verifier specify how many VPs it is expecting"? In most cases, there will be as many VPs as there are holder keys, but I think microsoft had a use-case where even if the same user key is used for cryptographic key binding, verifier needed the wallet to generate two separate VPs. cc @dangodb