Major notes
- Attended three meetings (on Monday). !
//4 actually 😃 - Asked some questions.
- Some good questions :)
- Noted by Stephen Curran. (More info below)
- Some good questions :)
Onboarding and Documentation Task Force call
on Monday 19 June 2023
Notes:
- their mentee documentation is pretty cool on the site.
Maybe see if you can discover or use that.
Links:
- https://wiki.hyperledger.org/display/LMDWG/Documentation+Standards+Task+Force
Media & Entertainment SIG call
On Monday 19 June 2023
Headed by : Brett Russell
-
Chat and introduction with Game Dev mentorship project team.
-
Freeflow discussion on AI and Gaming.
AnonCreds Specification Work Group call
on Monday 19 June 2023
Official Recording/Transcript @ Hyperledger Wiki
Personal Contribution:
- Asked some good questions.
Noted as significant and reminder by Stephen Curran
Had brought up/identified a crucial requirement, consideration that wasn't as yet explicit
Does the scheme (revocationegistry+revocationId) enable verifier to re-verify at later point in time? (i.e a while after the presentation)
Basically, is revocation checking ability for a vc unlimited.
Would that property be considered a privacy negative. ? (I think it should)Stephen: So the ability for the verifier to reverify should not. it also should be .. actually you're right. I should put that in explicitly, as a hard requirement that is not a thing we want. We don't want to allow that
Stephen: It would be a privacy negative, you are absolutely correct.
Stephen: So in the StatusList2021, which we don't consider you know, privacy preserving. It would not meet the requirement, because it shares a linkable identifier, and in sharing that it allows for the ongoing monitoring by the verifier to see if that credential ever gets revoked.
Stephen: And so yes, That would be a definite privacy negative.