index.html

<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
  <title>Verifiable Credentials API v0.7</title>
  <meta content='text/html; charset=utf-8' http-equiv='Content-Type'>
  <!--
    === NOTA BENE ===
    For the three scripts below, if your spec resides on dev.w3 you can check
    them out in the same tree and use relative links so that they'll work
    offline.
  -->

  <script class="remove"
    src="https://www.w3.org/Tools/respec/respec-w3c"></script>
  <script class="remove"
    src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/gh/digitalbazaar/respec-oas@0.0.1/dist/main.js"></script>
  <script class="remove"
    src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/gh/digitalbazaar/respec-mermaid@1.2.0/dist/main.js"></script>

  <script class='remove' src="./respec-oas.js"></script>
  <script class="remove" type="text/javascript">
  var respecConfig = {
    // the W3C WG and public mailing list
    group: "credentials",
    wgPublicList: "public-credentials",

    // the specification's short name, as in http://www.w3.org/TR/short-name/
    shortName: "vc-api",

    // specification status (e.g., WD, LCWD, NOTE, etc.). If in doubt use ED.
    specStatus: "CG-DRAFT",

    // W3C Candidate Recommendation information
    //crEnd: "2021-05-04",
    //implementationReportURI: "https://w3c.github.io/vc-api-test-suite/",

    // Editor's Draft URL
    edDraftURI: "https://w3c-ccg.github.io/vc-api/",

    // subtitle for the spec
    subtitle: "An HTTP API for Verifiable Credentials lifecycle management",

    // if you wish the publication date to be other than today, set this
    //publishDate:  "2019-11-07",

    // previously published draft, uncomment this and set its
    // YYYY-MM-DD date and its maturity status
    //previousPublishDate:  "2021-03-01",
    //previousMaturity:  "WD",

    // automatically allow term pluralization
    pluralize: true,

    // extend the bibliography entries
    localBiblio: {},
    xref: ["web-platform", "infra", "vc-data-model-2.0"],
    github: {
      repoURL: "https://github.com/w3c-ccg/vc-api/",
      branch: "main"
    },
    includePermalinks: false,

    // Uncomment these to use the respec extension that generates a list of
    //   normative statements:
    preProcess: [window.respecMermaid.createFigures],
    postProcess: [injectOas],
    lint: {
      "no-unused-dfns": false
    },

    // list of specification editors
    editors: [{
      name: "TBD"
    }],

    // list of specification authors
    authors: []
    };
  </script>
  <style>
pre {
  overflow-x: auto;
  white-space: pre-wrap;
}
pre .highlight {
  font-weight: bold;
  color: Green;
}
pre .subject {
  font-weight: bold;
  color: RoyalBlue;
}
pre .property {
  font-weight: bold;
  color: DarkGoldenrod;
}
pre .comment {
  font-weight: bold;
  color: SteelBlue;
  -webkit-user-select: none;
  -moz-user-select: none;
  -ms-user-select: none;
  user-select: none;
}
code a[href] {
  color: inherit;
  border-bottom: none;
}
code a[href]:hover {
  border-bottom: 1px solid #c63501;
}
ol.algorithm {
  counter-reset: numsection;
  list-style-type: none;
}
ol.algorithm li {
  margin: 0.5em 0;
}
ol.algorithm li:before {
  font-weight: bold;
  counter-increment: numsection;
  content: counters(numsection, ".") ") ";
}
table.simple {
  border-collapse: collapse;
  margin: 25px 0;
  min-width: 75%;
  border: 1px solid #dddddd;
}
table.simple thead tr {
  background-color: #005a9c;
  color: #ffffff;
  text-align: left;
}
table.simple th,
table.simple td {
  padding: 12px 15px;
  vertical-align: top;
  text-align: left;
}
table.simple tbody tr {
  border-bottom: 1px solid #dddddd;
}
table.simple tbody tr:nth-of-type(even) {
  background-color: #00000008;
}
table.simple tbody tr:last-of-type {
  border-bottom: 2px solid #005a9c;
}
  </style>
</head>
<body data-cite="vc-data-model">
  <section id='abstract'>

    <p>
Verifiable credentials provide a mechanism to express credentials on
the Web in a way that is cryptographically secure, privacy respecting,
and machine-verifiable. This specification provides data model and
HTTP protocols to issue, verify, present, and manage data used in such an
ecosystem.
    </p>
  </section>

  <section id='sotd'>
    <p>
This specification is highly experimental and changing rapidly. Implementation
in non-experimental systems is discouraged unless you are participating in
the weekly meetings that coordinate activity around this specification.
    </p>

    <p>
Comments regarding this document are welcome. Please file issues
directly on <a href="https://github.com/w3c-ccg/vc-api/issues/">GitHub</a>,
or send them
to <a href="mailto:public-credentials@w3.org">public-credentials@w3.org</a> (
<a href="mailto:public-credentials-request@w3.org?subject=subscribe">subscribe</a>,
<a href="https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/">archives</a>).
    </p>

  </section>

  <section class="informative">
    <h1>Introduction</h1>

    <p>
The Verifiable Credentials specification [[VC-DATA-MODEL-2.0]] provides a data
model and serialization to express digital credentials in a way that is
cryptographically secure, privacy respecting, and machine-verifiable. This
specification provides a set of HTTP Application Programming Interfaces (HTTP
APIs) and protocols for issuing, verifying, presenting, and managing Verifiable
Credentials.
    </p>

    <p>
When managing <a>verifiable credentials</a>, there are two general types of APIs
that are contemplated. The first type of APIs are designed to be used within
a single security domain. The second type of APIs can be used to
communicate across different security domains. This specification defines
both types of APIs.
    </p>

    <p>
The APIs that are designed to be used within a single security domain are used by
systems that are operating on behalf of a single role such as an Issuer, Verifier,
or Holder. One benefit of these APIs for the Verifiable Credentials ecosystem
is that they define a useful, common, and vetted modular architecture for
managing Verifiable Credentials. For example, this approach helps software
architects integrate with common components and speak a common language
when implementing systems that issue <a>verifiable credentials</a>. Knowing that
a particular architecture has been vetted is also beneficial for architects that
do not specialize in <a>verifiable credentials</a>. Documented architectures and
APIs increase market competition and reduce vendor lock-in and switching
costs.
    </p>

    <p>
The APIs that are designed to operate across multiple security domains are
used by systems that are communicating between two different roles in a
<a>verifiable credential</a> interaction, such as an API that is used to
communicate presentations between a Holder and a Verifier. In order to
achieve protocol interoperability in <a>verifiable credentials</a> interactions,
it is vital that these APIs be standardized. The additional benefits of
documenting these APIs are the same for documenting the
single-security-domain APIs: common, vetted architecture and APIs, increased
market competition, and reduced vendor lock-in and switching costs.
    </p>

    <p>
This specification contains the following sections that software architects
and implementers might find useful:
    </p>

    <ul class="bullet">
      <li>
<a href="#design-goals-and-rationale"></a> specifies the high level design goals
that drove the formulation of this specification.
      </li>
      <li>
<a href="#architecture-overview"></a> highlights the different roles
and components that are contemplated by the architecture.
      </li>
      <li>
<a href="#terminology"></a> defines specific terms that are used throughout
the document.
      </li>
      <li>
<a href="#authorization"></a> elaborates upon the various forms of authorization
that can be used with the API.
      </li>
      <li>
<a href="#issuing"></a> describes the APIs for
issuing <a>verifiable credentials</a> as well as updating their status.
      </li>
      <li>
<a href="#verifying"></a> specifies the APIs for verifying both
<a>verifiable credentials</a> and verifiable presentations.
      </li>
      <li>
<a href="#presenting"></a> defines APIs for generating and deriving
<a>verifiable presentations</a> within a trust domain, as well as
exchanging <a>verifiable presentations</a> across trust domains.
      </li>
      <li>
Finally, Appendix <a href="#privacy-considerations"></a>, and
<a href="#security-considerations"></a> are provided to highlight factors
that implementers might consider when building systems that utilize the APIs
defined by this specification.
      </li>
    </ul>

    <section class="informative">
      <h2>Design Goals and Rationale</h2>

      <p>
The Verifiable Credentials API is optimized towards the following design goals:
      </p>

      <table class="simple">
        <thead>
          <tr>
            <th>
Goal
            </th>
            <th>
Description
            </th>
          </tr>
        </thead>

        <tbody>
          <tr>
            <td>
Modularity
            </td>
            <td>
Implementers need only implement the APIs that are required for their use case
enabling modularity between Issuing, Verifying, and Presenting.
            </td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td>
Simplicity
            </td>
            <td>
The number of APIs and optionality are kept to a minimum to ensure that they are
easy to implement and audit from a security standpoint.
            </td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td>
Composability
            </td>
            <td>
The APIs are designed to be composable such that complex flows are possible
using a small number of simple API primitives.
            </td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td>
Extensibility
            </td>
            <td>
Extensions to API endpoints are expected and catered to in the API design
enabling experimentation and the addition of value-added services on top of
the base API platform.
            </td>
          </tr>
        </tbody>
      </table>


      <section>
        <h3>Design Guidelines</h3>
        <p>
          A <a href="https://restfulapi.net/">RESTful API</a> approach was used as a basis for the specification.
          Some endpoints use what is referred to as the 'controller' resource naming style.
          [[[?json-schema]]] is used to define the acceptable inputs to the APIs.
        </p>
      </section>

    </section>

    <section class="informative">
      <h2>
Architecture Overview
      </h2>

      <p>
The Verifiable Credentials Data Model defines three fundamental roles, the Issuer, the Verifier, and the Holder.
      </p>

      <figure id="roles">
        <img style="margin: auto; width: 33%; display: block;"
       src="./diagrams/roles.svg"
       alt="
Diagram showing the verifiable credential roles of Issuer, Holder, and Verifier">
        <figcaption style="text-align: center;">
The roles defined by the Verifiable Credentials Data Model specification.
        </figcaption>
      </figure>

      <p>
Actors fulfilling each of these roles may use a number of
software or service components to realize the VC API for
exchanging Verifiable Credentials.
      </p>
      <p>
Each role associates with a role-specific Coordinator, Service, and Admin as well
as their own dedicated Storage Service. In addition, the Issuer  may
also manage a Status Service for revocable credentials issued by the Issuer.
      </p>

      <figure id="components">
        <img style="margin: auto; width: 100%; display: block;"
       src="diagrams/components.svg"
       alt="VC API Components of Coordinators, Services, and Admin for Issuers, Verifiers, and Holders">
        <figcaption style="text-align: center;">
VC API Components. Arrows indicate initiation of flows.
        </figcaption>
      </figure>

      <p>
Any given VC API implementation may choose to combine any or all of these
components into a single functional application. The boundaries and
interfaces between these components are defined in this specification to
ensure interoperability and substitutability across the Verifiable
Credential conformant ecosystem.
      </p>

      <p>
In addition to aggregating components into a single app, implementers
may choose to operationalize any given role over any number active
instances of deployed software. For example, a browser-based Holder Coordinator
should be considered as an amalgam of a web browser, various code running
in that browser, one or more web servers (in the case of cross-origin AJAX
or remote embedded content), and the code running on that server. Each of
those elements runs as different software packages in different
configurations, each executing just part of the overall functionality of
the component. For the sake of the VC API, each component satisfies all of
its required functionality as a whole, regardless of deployment
architecture.
      </p>
      <p>
We define these components as follows:
      </p>
      <section>
        <h3>Coordinators</h3>
        <p>
          <strong>Issuer Coordinator &bull; Verifier Coordinator &bull; Holder Coordinator </strong>
        </p>
        <p>
Coordinators execute the business rules and policies set by the associated role.
Often this is a custom or proprietary Coordinator developed specifically for a
single party acting in that role, it is the integration glue that connects
the controlling party to the VC ecosystem.
        </p>
        <p>
Coordinators may or may not provide a visual user interface, depending on the
implementation. Pure command-line or continuously running services may
also be able to realize this component.
        </p>
        <p>
With the exception of the Status Service, all role-to-role communication
is between Coordinators acting on behalf of its particular actor to fulfill its
role.
        </p>
        <p>
The Issuer Coordinator executes the rules about who gets what credentials,
including how the parties creating or receiving those credentials are
authenticated and authorized. Typically the Issuer Coordinator integrates the
Issuer's back-end system with the Issuer service. This integration uses
whatever technologies are Appropriate; the interfaces between the Issuer
App and back-end services are out of scope for the VC-API.  The Issuer Coordinator
drives the Issuer service.
        </p>
        <p>
The Verifier Coordinator communicates with a Verifier service to first check
authenticity and timeliness of a given VC or VP, then Applies the
Verifier's business rules before ultimately accepting or rejecting that VC
or VP. Such business rules may include evaluating the Issuer of a
particular claim or simply checking a configured allow-list. The Verifier
App exposes an API for submitting VCs to the Verifier per the Verifier's
policies. For example, the Verifier Coordinator may only accept VCs from current
users of the Verifier's other services. These rules typically require
bespoke integration with the Verifier's existing back-end.
        </p>
        <p>
The Holder Coordinator executes the business rules for Approving the flow of
credentials under the control of the Holder, from Issuers to Verifiers. In
several deployments this means exposing a user interface that gives
individual Holders a visual way to authorize or Approve VC storage or
transfer. Some functionality of the Holder Coordinator is commonly referred to as
a wallet. In the VC API, the Holder Coordinator initiates all flows. They request
VCs from Issuers. They decide if, and when, to share those VCs with
Verifiers. Within the VC API, there is no way for either the Issuer or the
Verifier to initiate a VC transfer. In many scenarios, the Holder Coordinator is
expected to be under the control of an individual human, ensuring a person
is directly involved in the communication of VCs, even if only at the step
of authorizing the transfer. However, many VCs are about organizations,
not individuals. How individuals using Holder Coordinators related to
organizations, and in particular, how organizational credentials are
securely shared with, and presented by, (legal) agents of those
organizations is not yet specified as in scope for the VC API.
        </p>
      </section>
      <section>
        <h3>Services</h3>
        <p>
          <strong>Issuer Service &bull; Verifier Service &bull; Holder Service </strong>
        </p>
        <p>
Services provide generic VC API functionality, driven by its associated
App. Designed to enable infrastructure providers to offer VC capability
through Software-as-a-Service. All services expose network endpoints to
their authorized Coordinators, which are themselves operating on behalf of the
associated role. Although deployed services MAY provide their own HTML
interfaces, such interfaces are out of scope for the VC API. Only the
network endpoints of services are defined herein.
        </p>
        <p>
The Issuer Service takes requests to issue VCs from authorized Issuer Coordinators
and returns well-formed, signed Verifiable Credentials. This service MUST
have access to private keys (or key services which utilize private keys)
in order to create the proofs for those VCs. The API between the Issuer
service and its associated key service is believed to be out of scope for
the VC API, but may be addressed by WebKMS or similar specifications.
        </p>
        <p>
The Verifier service takes requests to verify Verifiable Credentials and
Verifiable Presentations and returns the result of checking their proofs
and status (if present). The service only checks the authenticity and
timeliness of the VC; leaving the Verifier Coordinator to finish Applying any business rules needed.
        </p>
        <p>
  The Holder service takes requests to create Verifiable Presentations
  from an optional set of VCs and returns well-formed, signed Verifiable
  Presentations containing those VCs. These VPs are used with Issuers to
  demonstrate control over DIDs prior to issuance and with Verifiers to
  present specific VCs.
        </p>
      </section>
      <section>
        <h3>Status Service</h3>
        <p>
        The Status Service provides a privacy-preserving means for publishing
        and checking the status of any Verifiable Credentials issued by the
        Issuer. Implementers of verifier services are encouraged to understand the
        privacy implications of checking status by referring to the respective
        status specification used by the verifiable credential.
        </p>
        <p>
          For specific mechanisms by which to manage Verifiable Credential statuses,
          it's recommended to refer to external well known specifications, such as the
          [[VC-BITSTRING-STATUS-LIST]].
        </p>
      </section>
      <section>
        <h3>Storage Services</h3>
        <p>
          <strong>Storage Service (Issuer) &bull;Storage Service
            (Verifier) &bull; Storage Service (Holder)
          </strong>
        </p>
        <p>
Each actor in the system is expected to store their own verifiable
credentials, as needed. Several known implementations use secure data
storage such as encrypted data vaults for storing the Holder's VCs and
use cryptographic authorizations to grant access to those VCs to
Verifier Coordinators, as directed by the Holder. In-browser retrieval of such
stored credentials can enable web-based Verifier Coordinators to integrate
data from the Holder without sharing that data with the Verifier—the
data is only ever present in the browser. Authorizing third-party
remote access to Holder storage is likely in-scope for the VC API,
although we expect this to be defined using extensible mechanisms to
support a variety of storage and authorization approaches.
        </p>
        <p>
The Issuer and Verifier storage solutions may or may not use secure
data storage. Since all such storage interaction is moderated by the
bespoke Issuer and Storage Coordinators, any necessary integrations can simply
be part of that bespoke customization. We expect different
implementations to compete on the ease of integration into various
back-end storage platforms.
        </p>
      </section>
      <section>
        <h3>Workflow Service</h3>
        <p>
The Workflow Service provides a way for coordinators to automate specific
interactions for specific users. Each role (Holder, Issuer, and Verifier)
can run their own Workflow Service to create and manage exchanges that
realize particular workflows. Administrators configure the workflow system
to support particular flows. Then, when the business rules justify it,
coordinators create exchanges at their Workflow Service and give authorized
access to those exchanges to any party.
        </p>
      </section>
      <section>
        <h3>Admin</h3>
        <p><strong>Issuer Admin &bull; Holder Admin &bull; Verifier Admin</strong></p>
        <p>
The Admin component is an acknowledgement that each of the other
components need a way to be configured and managed, without
prescribing the interfaces or means of that configuration. Some components
may use JSON files to drive a semi-automated Issuer. Others might
expose HTML pages. We expect different Coordinators and Services to compete on
the power, ease, and flexibility of their administration and
therefore, as of this writing, we anticipate Admin functionality to be
out of scope for the VC API. However, we actually believe that to the
extent we can standardize configuration setting across
implementations, the more substitutable each component.
        </p>
      </section>
      <section>
        <h3>Summary</h3>
        <p>
Based on this architectural thinking, we may want to frame the VC API
as a roadmap of related specifications, integrated in an extensible
way for maximum substitutability. Several technologies, such as EDVs
and WebKMSs would likely benefit from the crypto suite Approach taken
for VC proofs. Defining a generic mechanism that can be realized by
any functionally conformant technology enables flexibility while
laying the groundwork with current existing functionality. In this
way, we may be able to acknowledge that elements like Key Services,
Storage, and Status are necessary parts of the VC API while deferring
the definition of how those elements work to specification already in
development as well as those yet to be written.
        </p>
      </section>

    </section>

    <section id="conformance">

      <p>
      </p>
     <p>
A conforming <dfn>VC API client</dfn> is ...
     </p>

      <p>
A conforming <dfn>VC API server</dfn> is ...
      </p>

    </section>

  </section>

  <section class="informative">
    <h2>Terminology</h2>

    <div data-include="https://w3c.github.io/vc-data-model/terms.html">
    </div>

  </section>

  <section>
    <h2>The VC API</h2>
    <section>
      <h3>Base URL</h3>
      <p>
There are no restrictions put on the base URL location of the implementation.
The URL paths used throughout this specification are shown as absolute paths and
their base URL MAY be the host name of the server (e.g., <code>example.com</code>), a
subdomain (e.g., <code>api.example.com</code>), or a path within that host (e.g.,
<code>example.com/api</code>).
      </p>
    </section>
    <section>
      <h3>Authorization</h3>
      <p>
The VC API can be deployed in a variety of networking environments which
might contain hostile actors. As a result, conforming <a>VC API servers</a>
require conforming <a>VC API clients</a> to utilize secure authorization
technologies when performing certain types of requests. Each HTTP endpoint
defined in this document specifies whether or not authorization is required
when performing a request. With the exception of the class of forbidden
authorization protocols discussed later in this section, the VC API is agnostic
regarding authorization mechanism.
      </p>
      <p>
The VC API is meant to be generic and useful in many scenarios that require
the issuance, possession, presentation, and/or verification of Verifiable
Credentials. To this end, implementers are advised to consider the following
classifications of use cases:
      </p>
      <ul>
        <li>
<i>Public</i>. A Public API is one that can be called with no authorization.
Examples include an open witness or timestamp service (a trusted service that
can digitally sign a message with a timestamp for an audit trail purpose), or
an open retail coupon endpoint ("buy one, get one free"). Public verifiers
might also exist as well, to act as an agnostic third party in a trust scenario.
      </li>
      <li>
<i>Permissioned</i>. Permissioned authorization requires the entity making
the API call to, for example, have an access control token or a capability
URL, or to invoke a capability from a mutually trusted
source. These permissions grant access to the API, but make no assumptions
about credential subjects, previous interactions, or the like. Permissioned
access is particularly useful in service-to-service based workflows, where
credential subjects are not directly involved.
      </li>
      <li>
<i>Bound</i>. Bound authorization involves scenarios where the API calls are
tightly coupled, linked, or bound to another process, often out-of-band, that has
authenticated the holder/subject of the API interaction. These use cases include,
but are not limited to, issuance of subject-specific identity claims directly to
the subject in question, or verification of credentials to qualify the holder for
service at the verifier, for example. Examples of methods to bind activity on one
channel to a VC API call include <a href="https://chapi.io/">CHAPI</a> (the
<a href="https://chapi.io/">Credential Handler API</a>), OIDC (OpenID Connect),
and GNAP (the Grant Negotiation and Authorization Protocol). Developers implementing
bound authorization will need to take steps to ensure the appropriate level of
assurance is achieved in the flow to properly protect the binding.
        </li>
      </ul>
      <p>
The rest of this section gives examples of the authorization technologies that have
been contemplated for use by conforming implementations. Other equivalent authorization
technologies can be used. Implementers are cautioned against using non-standard
or legacy authorization technologies.
      </p>

      <section>
        <h4>Forbidden Authorization</h4>
        <p>
Requests to the VC API MUST NOT utilize any authorization protocol that
includes long-lived static credentials such as usernames and passwords or
similar values in those requests. An example of such a forbidden protocol is
HTTP Basic Authentication [[RFC7617]].
        </p>
      </section>

      <section>
        <h4>OAuth 2.0</h4>
        <p>
If the OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework [[RFC6749]] is utilized for authorization,
the access tokens utilized by clients MAY be OAuth 2.0 Bearer Tokens [[RFC6750]]
or any other valid OAuth 2.0 token type. Any valid OAuth 2.0 grant type MAY be used
to request the access tokens. However, OAuth 2.0 MUST be implemented in the following
way:
        </p>
        <p>
OAuth2 tokens for this purpose have an audience of the particular issuer instance,
e.g., `origin/issuers/zc612332f3`.
        </p>
        <p>
The scopes are generalized to read/write actions on particular endpoints:
        </p>
        <ul>
          <li>
            `read:/` would allow reading on any API on a particular instance.
          </li>
          <li>
            `write:/` would allow writing on any API on a particular instance.
          </li>
        </ul>
        <p>
`write:/credentials/issue` would only allow writing to that particular API.
        </p>
        <p>
Other authorization mechanisms that support delegation might be defined in the future.
        </p>
      </section>

    </section>
    <section>
      <h3>Service Instances</h3>
      <p>
The APIs defined in this specification presume that they are attached to a
specific instance with an associated configuration that has been
put in place by a system administrator. When a client calls an endpoint on a
particular instance, the instance uses the configuration and options provided by
the client to execute the action.
      </p>
      <p>
For example, the `/credentials/issue` endpoint can be provided at the end of a
longer URL such as `/instances/12345/credentials/issue`. In this case, it is the
instance that is configured to know which cryptographic key to use for issuance,
whether or not a status list is involved, the type of credential to issue, the
credential format, and what additional options are possible on the endpoint.
      </p>
      <p>
Software clients that call a particular instance might not have the capability
to configure an instance, or be aware of the setup that the administrator did on
the instance other than the requisite details to make appropriate use of it.
Administration endpoints for configuring instances could be
provided by implementations but are not necessarily exposed as HTTP APIs;
configuration can also be done through configuration files or graphical
interfaces.
      </p>
      <p class="note"
         title="A coordinator can use multiple service instances">
A coordinator instance can have access to multiple service instances in order to
support different use cases or a use case with complex flows. Runtime discovery of service instance configuration
is not supported by the VC API as services are expected to be known by the
coordinator at the time of coordinator deployment.
      </p>
    </section>
        <section>
      <h3>Options</h3>
      <p>
Some of the endpoints defined in the following sections accept an `options` object.
All properties of the `options` object are OPTIONAL when configuring each instance,
as these properties are intended to meet per-deployment needs that might vary.
Thus, any given instance configuration MAY prohibit client use of some `options`
properties in order to prevent clients from passing certain data to that instance.
Likewise, an instance configuration MAY require that clients include some `options`
properties.
      </p>
      <h4>Options Extensibility</h4>
      <p>
Implementations MAY extend an `options` object with additional properties.
      </p>
      <p>
As extension properties are implementation specific, they ought not be mandatory.
This is to maintain interoperability by avoiding clients needing to be modified to use a specific implementation.
      </p>
      <p>
When adding an extension `options` property, consider whether providing optionality to clients is necessary.
If not, using instance configuration to vary API functionality might be a preferable approach.
      </p>
    </section>
    <section>
      <h3>Content Serialization</h3>
      <p>
All entity bodies in requests and responses sent to or received from the API endpoints defined by this specification MUST be serialized as JSON and include the `Content-Type` header with a media type value of `application/json`.
      </p>
    </section>
    <section>
      <h3>Handling Unknown Options and Data</h3>
      <p>
Many of the endpoints defined in the following sections receive data and options in request bodies.
      </p>
      <p>
Implementations MUST throw an error if an endpoint receives data, options, or option values that it
does not understand or know how to process.
      </p>
      <h4>Payload Sizes</h4>
      <p>Implementers are encouraged to pay attention to the payload sizes of the Verifiable Credentials that their implementations process.</p>
      <p>Presentations can bundle a large volume of credentials, which can result in a higher request size than anticipated by implementers. This raises the risk of interoperability issues.</p>
      <p>A default maximum size of 10MB per Verifiable Credential is RECOMMENDED as an interoperability baseline, with the possibility of configuring a larger size if required.
        This also accommodates the 16MB size limit of most document-based database storage solutions.</p>
      <p>By default, large binary values are expected to be linked to and a hash included (unless there is a privacy reason for not doing so).</p>
    </section>
    <section>
      <h3>API Component Overview</h3>
        <p>
          This section gives an overview of all endpoints in the VC-API by the component the endpoint is expected be callable from.
          If a component does not have a listing below it means the VC-API does not currently specify any endpoints for that component.
        </p>

      <h4>Issuer Coordinator</h4>
      <p>
        Below are all endpoints expected to be exposed by the Issuer Coordinator, along with the component
        that is expected to call the endpoint
      </p>
      <table class="simple api-component-table"
        data-api-path="/credentials"></table>

      <h4>Issuer Service</h4>
      <p>
        Below are all endpoints expected to be exposed by the Issuer Service, along with the component
        that is expected to call the endpoint
      </p>
      <table class="simple api-component-table"
        data-api-path="/credentials/issue /credentials /credentials/{id}"></table>

      <h4>Status Service</h4>
      <p>
        Below are all endpoints expected to be exposed by the Status Service, along with the component
        that is expected to call the endpoint
      </p>
      <table class="simple api-component-table"
        data-api-path="/credentials/status"></table>

      <h4>Verification Service</h4>
      <p>
        Below are all endpoints expected to be exposed by the Verification Service, along with the component
        that is expected to call the endpoint
      </p>
      <table class="simple api-component-table"
        data-api-path="/credentials/verify /presentations/verify /challenges"></table>

      <h4>Holder Service</h4>
      <p>
        Below are all endpoints expected to be exposed by the Holder Service, along with the component
        that is expected to call the endpoint
      </p>
      <table class="simple api-component-table"
        data-api-path="/credentials/derive /presentations/prove /presentations /presentations/{id}"></table>

      <h4>Workflow Service</h4>
      <p>
        Below are all endpoints expected to be exposed by the Workflow Service, along with the component
        that is expected to call the endpoint
      </p>
      <table class="simple api-component-table"
        data-api-path="/workflows /workflows/{localWorkflowId} /workflows/{localWorkflowId}/exchanges /workflows/{localWorkflowId}/exchanges/{localExchangeId}"></table>

    </section>
    <section>
      <h3>Issuing</h3>
      <p>
The following APIs are defined for issuing a Verifiable Credential:
      </p>

      <table class="simple api-summary-table"
        data-api-path="/credentials /credentials/{id}
          /credentials/issue /credentials/status"></table>

      <section>
        <h4>Issue Credential</h4>
        <p>
        </p>

        <p class="note" title="Issued credential media types">
          An `EnvelopedVerifiableCredential` can be returned in the `IssueCredentialSuccess` response
          in order to issue credentials with a media type other than `application/vc`,
          such as `application/vc+sd-jwt`.
        </p>

        <div class="api-detail"
          data-api-endpoint="post /credentials/issue"></div>
      </section>

      <section>
        <h4>Get Credentials</h4>
        <p>
        </p>

        <div class="api-detail"
          data-api-endpoint="get /credentials"></div>
      </section>

      <section>
        <h4>Get a Specific Credential</h4>
        <p>
        </p>

        <div class="api-detail"
          data-api-endpoint="get /credentials/{id}"></div>
      </section>

      <section>
        <h4>Update Status</h4>
        <p>
        </p>

        <div class="api-detail"
          data-api-endpoint="post /credentials/status"></div>
      </section>

    </section>

    <section>
      <h3>Verifying</h3>
      <p>
The following APIs are defined for verifying a Verifiable Credential:
      </p>

      <table class="simple api-summary-table"
        data-api-path="/credentials/verify /presentations/verify /challenges"></table>

      <section>
        <h4>Verify Credential</h4>
        <p>
        </p>

        <div class="api-detail"
          data-api-endpoint="post /credentials/verify"></div>
      </section>

      <section>
        <h4>Verify Presentation</h4>
        <p>
        </p>

        <div class="api-detail"
          data-api-endpoint="post /presentations/verify"></div>
      </section>

      <section>
        <h4>Create Challenge</h4>
        <p>
        </p>

        <div class="api-detail"
          data-api-endpoint="post /challenges"></div>
        <p>
The instance should create a challenge for use during verification, and track the number of times the challenge has been passed to verification endpoints as `options.challenge`.
        </p>
      </section>

    </section>


    <section>
      <h3>Presenting</h3>
      <p>
The following APIs are defined for presenting a Verifiable Credential:
      </p>

      <table class="simple api-summary-table"
        data-api-path="
          /credentials/derive /presentations
          /presentations /presentations/{id}
          /exchanges/ /exchanges/{exchange-id} /exchanges/{exchange-id}/{transaction-id}"
        ></table>

        <p class="advisement">
The URL path values <code>exchange-id</code> and <code>transaction-id</code> are
meaningful to the server but are opaque to the client. While some server
implementations might use values that happen to be human-readable,  clients are
strongly advised to not assign semantics to any human-readable values.
        </p>

      <section>
        <h4>Derive Credential</h4>
        <p>
        </p>

        <div class="api-detail"
          data-api-endpoint="post /credentials/derive"></div>
      </section>

      <section>
        <h4>Create Presentation</h4>
        <p>
        </p>

        <p class="note" title="Presentation media types">
          An `EnvelopedVerifiablePresentation` can be returned in the response
          in order to create presentations with a media type other than `application/vp`,
          such as `application/vp+jwt`.
        </p>

        <div class="api-detail"
          data-api-endpoint="post /presentations"></div>
      </section>

      <section>
        <h4>Exchange Discovery</h4>
        <p>
Discovery is an optional call for the Holder Coordinator to ensure the Holder Coordinator can support
the exchange protocol requirements before calling the endpoint. Coordinators SHOULD support
the exchange discovery endpoint.
        </p>
        <div class="api-detail"
          data-api-endpoint="post /exchanges/"></div>
      </section>

      <section>
        <h4>Get Presentations</h4>
        <p>
        </p>

        <div class="api-detail"
          data-api-endpoint="get /presentations"></div>
      </section>


      <section>
        <h4>Get a Specific Presentation</h4>
        <p>
        </p>

        <div class="api-detail"
          data-api-endpoint="get /presentations/{id}"></div>
      </section>
    </section>


    <section>
      <h3>Workflows and Exchanges</h3>
      <p>
A VC API workflow defines a particular set of steps for exchanging verifiable
credentials between two parties across a trust boundary. Each step can involve
the issuance, verification, transmission, or presentation of verifiable
credentials. Examples of VC API workflows include, but are not limited to:
      </p>
      <ul class="bullet">
        <li>
Issuing an employee membership credential to an employee who has logged in to a
coordinator website.
        </li>
        <li>
Issuing a vehicle title credential after receiving a presentation of a
driver's license credential.
        </li>
        <li>
Verification of the presentation of a permanent resident credential.
        </li>
        <li>
Receipt of one or more newly-issued single-use proof of age credentials.
        </li>
      </ul>
      <p>
Workflow instances are expected to be created by administrators, for use with,
for example, coordinator websites. A workflow instance is created by performing
an HTTP POST to the workflow service's `/workflows` endpoint. The HTTP request
body includes the configuration for the workflow instance. This includes, but
is not limited to, information about the steps that define the workflow and any
credential templates that will be used to issue verifiable credentials. The
steps that define the workflow might also be templates, enabling additional
flexibility. If a workflow involves the issuance of verifiable credentials, or
the verification of presentations or credentials, then the workflow instance
configuration can include authorization capabilities to use one or more VC API
issuer and/or verification services.
      </p>
      <p>
Once a workflow instance exists, authorization to create and query particular
workflow interactions, called VC API exchanges, can be given to coordinators.
      </p>
      <p>
A VC API exchange represents a particular interaction based on a given VC API
workflow. The interaction will take place between an exchange client and the
workflow service. Exchanges are expected to be transitory, only existing as
long as the interaction takes to complete. The workflow service stores state
information about each exchange such as whether the exchange is pending,
active, or complete, as well as the current step in the workflow, any
workflow-specific variables and data, and any verifiable presentations and
credentials received while the exchange executes. While there is no technical
limitation on the number of steps in a workflow, implementers might want to use
a default maximum number of steps to prevent bugs.
      </p>
      <p>
An issuer, verifier, or holder coordinator is responsible for creating
exchanges. The coordinator creates an exchange by performing an HTTP POST to
the `/exchanges` subpath of a chosen workflow, on the workflow service. The
HTTP request body includes an expiration date and time for the exchange and any
variables to be used to populate the workflow's templates for the particular
exchange. The request body can also include configuration options to enable the
exchange to be executed using additional protocols beyond VC API. Once the
exchange is created, an exchange URL that identifies the exchange and enables
interaction with it is returned to the coordinator.
      </p>
      <p>
The exchange URL is given to the exchange client so that it can initiate the
exchange. Initiating the exchange does not require any authorization beyond the
exchange URL. Depending on the workflow service implementation, exchange URLs
can also be capability URLs (i.e., the URL is an unguessable secret such that
only whomever is given the URL can initiate the exchange). If the workflow that
the exchange is based on requires any additional authorization beyond the
possession of the exchange URL, this is to be obtained during the exchange,
not at its initiation.
      </p>
      <p>
The exchange URL can also be used by the coordinator to query the current
state of the exchange as it progresses and to obtain information associated
with the exchange that the workflow service has stored. Querying the exchange
in this way requires additional authorization that the coordinator is expected
to have and that the exchange client is not.
      </p>
      <p>
How the exchange URL is transmitted from a coordinator to an exchange client is
out of scope for this specification. Known mechanisms for sharing the exchange
URL with the client include the Credential Handler API (aka CHAPI), a QR
code, or a universal link.
      </p>
      <p>
VC API exchanges are designed to be executable using other protocols in
addition to the VC API exchange protocol; for example, an exchange could
potentially be executable with any of the OID4VCI, OID4VP, DIDComm, and
VC API exchange protocols. The protocols supported depend on the complexity
of the workflow the exchange is based on, and the options provided by the
coordinator when the exchange was created.
      </p>
      <p>
The exchange client is expected to initiate the exchange using a protocol that
is compatible with how the client received the exchange URL. For example, the
exchange URL could have been provided over CHAPI with a protocol identifier
indicating that the VC API protocol ought to be used. Alternatively, the
exchange URL could be included as the "credential_issuer" in an OID4VCI
credential offer, or as the "client_id" of an OID4VP authorization request,
indicating that OID4VCI or OID4VP, respectively, ought to be used. This section
focuses on how an exchange client uses VC API to interact with the exchange;
see <span class="issue">Appendix TBD</span> to see how to combine VC API exchanges with other protocols
such as OID4VCI, OID4VP, and DIDComm.
      </p>
      <p>
Exchanges that are executed using the VC API protocol involve messages sent as
request and response bodies over HTTP. Each message consists of a simple JSON
object that includes zero or more of the following properties and values:
      </p>
      <ul class="bullet">
        <li>
`redirectUrl`: A URL that can be used to continue an interaction at another
location. One use case for this is to send the user of an exchange client
back to a coordinator website after an exchange has completed.
        </li>
        <li>
`verifiablePresentation`: A Verifiable Presentation. This is used by either
party in an exchange to provide information to the other party, either because
the latter requested it or because the former is simply offering it.
        </li>
        <li>
`verifiablePresentationRequest`: A Verifiable Presentation Request. This is
used by either party in an exchange to request information from the other
party.
        </li>
      </ul>
      <p>
Custom properties and values might also be included, but are expected to
trigger errors in implementations that do not recognize them.
      </p>
      <p>
To initiate an exchange using the VC API protocol, an exchange client
performs an HTTP POST sending a JSON object as the request body. In the
simplest case, when the client has no constraints of its own on the exchange
&mdash; i.e., it has nothing to request from the other party &mdash; the
JSON object is empty (`{}`). The workflow service responds with its own JSON
object in the response body.
      </p>
      <p>
If that response object is empty, the exchange is complete and nothing is
requested from nor offered to the exchange client. If the object includes
`verifiablePresentationRequest`, then the exchange is not yet complete and
some additional information is requested, as specified by the contents of the
associated verifiable presentation request. If the object includes
`verifiablePresentation`, then some information is offered, such as
verifiable credentials issued to the holder operating the exchange client or
verifiable credentials with information about the exchange server's operator
based on the exchange client's request. If the object includes `redirectUrl`,
the exchange is complete and the workflow service recommends that the client
proceed to another place to continue the interaction in another form.
      </p>
      <p>
Many verifiable credential use cases can be implemented using these basic
primitives. Either party to an exchange is capable of requesting verifiable
presentations and of providing one or more verifiable credentials that might
be necessary to establish trust and/or gain authorization capabilities, and
either party is capable of presenting credentials that they hold or that they
have issued. Specific workflows can be configured to expect specific
presentations and credentials and to reject deviations from the expected flow
of information. When a workflow service determines that a particular message
is not acceptable, it raises an error by responding with a `4xx` HTTP status
message and a JSON object that expresses information about the error.
      </p>
      <p>
The VC API exchange design approach is layered: it aims to provide a minimal
communication message layer and a set of primitives that enable most use cases
to be implemented via specific verifiable presentation requests and verifiable
credentials at a layer above. See the appendices that follow for examples of
workflows and exchanges that use specific verifiable presentation requests and
verifiable credentials.
      </p>
      <span class="issue">These examples will be added later.</span>
      <p>
A given interaction with a VC API exchange is expected to be short-lived but other mechanisms can be used to enable longer or multi-stage interactions.
Examples of other interaction mechanisms include SMS, email, web notifications, or phone calls.
This approach simplifies digital wallet implementation and allows
existing mechanisms to be reused without reinvention within
the VC API. The Web or native platforms are expected to enable
additional interactions via applications (such as Web browsers)
or other platform features.
For example, in asynchronous issuance, a holder requests a credential but waits for processing.
In such cases, VC API components (such as an issuer coordinator) make
use of mechanisms outside the VC API to notify the holder when their
credential is ready for collection.
      </p>
      <p>
The following APIs are defined for using workflows and exchanges for credential use cases that require crossing trust boundaries:
      </p>

      <table class="simple api-summary-table"
        data-api-path="/workflows /workflows/{localWorkflowId} /workflows/{localWorkflowId}/exchanges /workflows/{localWorkflowId}/exchanges/{localExchangeId}"></table>

      <p>
In the workflows and exchanges APIs, a "local" ID refers to an ID that is local to a service instance.
In other words, an `exchangeId` or `workflowId` refers to a fully qualified URL,
while a `localExchangeId` or `localWorkflowId` refers to a specific element in the URL path.
      </p>

      <section>
        <h4>Create Workflow</h4>
        <p>
        </p>

        <div class="api-detail"
          data-api-endpoint="post /workflows"></div>
      </section>

      <section>
        <h4>Get Workflow Configuration</h4>
        <p>
        </p>

        <div class="api-detail"
          data-api-endpoint="get /workflows/{localWorkflowId}"></div>
      </section>
      <p>
There is an `expires` property associated with exchanges, denoting the expiration date and time of the exchange. It is created using the /workflows/{localWorkflowId}/exchanges
endpoint. This impacts the lifetime of challenges associated with such an exchange: if a
challenge is bound to an exchange, that challenge ceases to be valid at the date referenced by the `expires` property of the exchange.
      </p>
      <section>
        <h4>Create Exchange</h4>
        <p>
        </p>

        <div class="api-detail"
          data-api-endpoint="post /workflows/{localWorkflowId}/exchanges"></div>
      </section>

      <section>
        <h4>Participate in an Exchange</h4>
        <p>
        </p>

        <div class="api-detail"
          data-api-endpoint="post /workflows/{localWorkflowId}/exchanges/{localExchangeId}"></div>
      </section>

      <section>
        <h4>Get Exchange State</h4>
        <p>
        </p>

        <div class="api-detail"
          data-api-endpoint="get /workflows/{localWorkflowId}/exchanges/{localExchangeId}"></div>
      </section>


      <section>
        <h4>Exchange Examples</h4>

        <p>
The APIs in this specification enables unmediated (automated,
machine-to-machine) or mediated (person in the loop) exchanges to be
executed. These exchanges are initiated by a Holder Coordinator and responded to by
any Coordinator that implements exchanges. The flows consist of the following steps:
        </p>

        <ol>
          <li>
The Holder Coordinator contacts the receiving Coordinator to request the initiation of a
particular exchange.
          </li>
          <li>
The receiving Coordinator responds with a presentation request of some kind to
authenticate and/or authorize the Holder Coordinator and provides the next hop in the
exchange as a URL.
          </li>
          <li>
The Holder Coordinator responds to the receiving Coordinator with a Verifiable Presentation
containing information that will satisfy the presentation request.
          </li>
          <li>
The receiving Coordinator responds with a Verifiable Presentation with the newly issued
Verifiable Credentials or a further presentation request as expressed in
step 2 above.
          </li>
        </ol>
        <p>
The Holder Coordinator MAY call the Coordinator's exchange discovery endpoint to determine if
the Holder Coordinator supports the Coordinator's protocol requirements on a particular endpoint,
before actually initiating the exchange.
        </p>
        <p>
A diagram of the steps outlined above is presented below:
        </p>

        <figure>
          <pre class="mermaid">
sequenceDiagram
    participant H as Holder
    participant W as Holder Coordinator (Wallet)
    participant I as Issuer/Verifier Coordinator
    autonumber
    Note right of H: Start exchange
    W->>I: Initiate
    Note right of W: POST /workflows/123/exchanges/abc &mdash; HTTP request to start exchange (e.g., send credentials, get credentials)
    I->>W: Verifiable Presentation Request (VPR)
    Note left of I: VPR includes method of interaction, for purposes of exchange
    W->>I: Verifiable Presentation (VP)
    Note right of W: POST /workflows/123/exchanges/abc &mdash; sent via interaction mechanism to meet requirements of exchange
    I->>W: Verifiable Presentation
    Note left of I: VP includes result of exchange (e.g., VCs), or VPR with new interaction request, or error description
          </pre>
          <figcaption>
A standard exchange between a Holder and an Issuer/Verifier.
          </figcaption>
        </figure>

        <p class="note">
The general exchange above can be performed in a way that is fully automated,
mediated by a person, or in a hybrid fashion where portions are automated
but interaction by a person is required at certain stages. The second step
above is used to provide guidance on whether the next step is automated or
requires an individual to intervene.
        </p>

      </section>
    </section>

    <section>
      <h3>Error Handling</h3>
      <p>
When an implementation detects an anomaly while processing a document, a
<dfn>ProblemDetails</dfn> object can be used to report the issue to other
software systems. The interfaces for these objects follow [[RFC9457]]
to encode the data. A [=ProblemDetails=] [=map=] consists of the following
properties:
      </p>

      <dl>
        <dt>type</dt>
        <dd>
The `type` [=map/key=] MUST be present and its value MUST be a [=URL=]
identifying the type of problem.
        </dd>
        <dt>title</dt>
        <dd>
The `title` [=map/key=] SHOULD provide a short but specific human-readable
string for the problem.
        </dd>
        <dt>detail</dt>
        <dd>
The `detail` [=map/key=] SHOULD provide a longer human-readable string for the
problem.
        </dd>
      </dl>

      <p>
Leveraging [=map/keys=] such as `detail`, and `instance` is encouraged, to
provide more contextual feedback about the error, while being conscious of
security concerns and hence not disclosing sensitive information.
      </p>

      <p>
The following problem description types are defined by this specification:
      </p>

      <dl>
        <dt id="UNKNOWN_OPTION_PROVIDED">
https://www.w3.org/TR/vc-api#UNKNOWN_OPTION_PROVIDED
        </dt>
        <dd>
An option that is unknown to the implementation was provided to the API call.
        </dd>
      </dl>

      <p>
Further lists of [=ProblemDetails=] that might be reported by implementations
can be found in the following specifications:
      </p>

      <ul>
        <li>
<a data-cite="VC-DATA-MODEL-2.0#problem-details">
Section 7.2: Problem Details</a> in the [[[VC-DATA-MODEL-2.0]]] specification.
        </li>
        <li>
<a data-cite="VC-DATA-INTEGRITY#processing-errors">
Section 4.7: Processing Errors</a> in the [[[VC-DATA-INTEGRITY]]] specification.
        </li>
        <li>
<a data-cite="VC-DATA-INTEGRITY#processing-errors">
Section 3.5: Processing Errors</a> in the [[[VC-BITSTRING-STATUS-LIST]]]
specification.
        </li>
      </ul>

      <pre class="example" title="An example of a ProblemDetails object">
{
  "type": "https://www.w3.org/TR/vc-data-model#CRYPTOGRAPHIC_SECURITY_ERROR",
  "status": 400,
  "title": "CRYPTOGRAPHIC_SECURITY_ERROR",
  "detail": "The cryptographic security mechanism couldn't be verified. This is likely due to a malformed proof or an invalid verificationMethod."
}
      </pre>

      <p class="issue">
The example `type` URLs above will work in the future after VCDM v2.0 becomes a
global standard. To ensure the error links to the appropriate location, you can
replace the base URL of `https://www.w3.org/TR/vc-data-model` with
`www.w3.org/TR/vc-data-model-2.0` for the time being.
      </p>

      <p class="advisement" title="Sanitize error details in production">
Implementers are strongly advised to sanitize all server errors in production
environments, as not doing so can lead to information disclosure.
      </p>

      <p>
It is recommended to avoid raising errors while performing verification, and
instead gather ProblemDetails objects to include in the verification results.
      </p>

      <section>
        <h3>Verification Errors vs. Warnings</h3>

        <p>
This specification defines a distinction between a verification error and a
verification warning. Errors are `ProblemDetails` relating to cryptography,
data model, and malformed context and are unrecoverable. Warnings are
`ProblemDetails` relating to status and validity periods and might be
recoverable or leave the subsequent action to the discretion of the
application.
        </p>

        <p>
If an error is included, the `verified` property of the `VerificationResponse`
object MUST be set to `false`; if no errors are included, it MUST be set to
`true`.
        </p>

        <pre class="example" title="An example verification response containing warnings and errors.">
{
  "verified": false,
  "document": verifiableCredential,
  "mediaType": "application/vc",
  "controller": issuer,
  "controllerDocument": didDocument,
  "warnings": [ProblemDetails],
  "errors": [ProblemDetails]
}
        </pre>

      </section>
    </section>

  </section>

  <section class="appendix">
    <h2>Privacy Considerations</h2>
    <p>
    </p>

    <section>
      <h3>Delegation</h3>

      <p>
<a>Verifiable credentials</a> [[VC-DATA-MODEL-2.0]] are a standard data model
designed to mitigate risks of misuse and fraud. As a data model, <a>verifiable
credentials</a> are protocol-neutral and consider at least two types of
entities: <a>issuer</a> and <a>subject</a>. When the subject of a <a>verifiable
credential</a> is a natural person or linked to a natural person, privacy and
human rights can be impacted by the vastly more efficient processing of
standardized <a>verifiable credentials</a> as compared to their analog
ancestors.
      </p>

      <p>
Technology, in the form of standardized APIs and protocols for issuing
<a>verifiable credentials</a>, further enhances the efficiency of processing
<a>verifiable credentials</a> and adds to the risks of unforeseen privacy and
human rights consequences.
      </p>

      <p>
<a>Verifiable credentials</a> issuance has a request phase and a delivery phase.
The request might be made by the <a>subject</a> or another role, and delivery
can be to a client that might or might not be controlled by the subject.
Delegation is highly relevant for both phases. The <a>issuer</a> might delegate
processing of the request to a separate entity. The subject, for their part,
might also delegate the ability to request a <a>verifiable credential</a> to a
separate entity. Note that the subject might not always have the capability or
ability to perform delegation. Examples include: a new born baby, a pet, and a
person with dementia. So the request might be performed by a third party who was
not delegated by the subject. The ability to delegate is a third dimension in
the enhanced efficiency of processing <a>verifiable credentials</a> and has
impact on privacy and human rights.
      </p>

      <p>
The architecture described in this specification is designed for market acceptance through a combination of
efficiency and respect for privacy and human rights. APIs and protocols for
processing <a>verifiable credentials</a> do not favor delegation by the issuer
role over delegation by the subject role.
      </p>
    </section>

    <section>
      <h3>"Phoning Home" Considered Harmful</h3>

      <p>
It is considered a bad privacy practice for a <a>verifier</a> to contact an
<a>issuer</a> about a specific <a>verifiable credential</a>. This
practice is known as "phoning home" and can result in a mismatch
in privacy expectations between <a>holders</a>, <a>issuers</a>,
<a>verifiers</a>, and other parties expressed in a <a>verifiable credential</a>.
Phoning home enables <a>issuers</a> to correlate unsuspecting parties with
the use of certain <a>verifiable credentials</a> which can violate
privacy expectations that each entity might have regarding the use
of those credentials. For example, what is expected by the <a>holder</a> to be
a private interaction between them and the <a>verifier</a> becomes one where
the <a>issuer</a> is notified of the interaction.
      </p>

      <p>
There are some interactions where contacting the <a>issuer</a> in a
privacy-preserving manner upholds the privacy expectations of the <a>holder</a>.
For example, contacting the <a>issuer</a> to get revocation status information
in a privacy-respecting manner, such as through a status list that provides
group privacy can be acceptable as long as the <a>issuer</a> is not able to
single out which <a>verifiable credential</a> is being queried based on the
retrieval of the status list. For more information on one such mechanism
see the [[[VC-BITSTRING-STATUS-LIST]]] specification.
      </p>

      <p>
<a>Verifiers</a> are urged to not "phone home" in ways that will create
privacy violations. When retrieving content that is linked from a
<a>verifiable credential</a>, using mechanisms such as [[[?RFC9458]]] and
aggressively caching results can improve the privacy characteristics of the
ecosystem.
      </p>

    </section>
  </section>

  <section class="appendix">
    <h2>Security Considerations</h2>
    <p>
    </p>

    <section>
      <h3>Deletion</h3>

      <p>
The APIs provided by this specification enable the deletion of
<a>verifiable credentials</a> and <a>verifiable presentations</a> from
<a href="#storage-services">storage services</a>. The result of these deletions
and the side-effects they might cause are out of scope for this specification.
However, implementers are advised to understand the various ways deletion can be
implemented. There are at least two types of deletion that are contemplated by
this specification.
      </p>

      <p>
<dfn>Partial deletion</dfn> marks a record for deletion but continues to store
some or all of the original information. This mode of operation can be useful if
there are audit requirements for all credentials and/or presentations over
a particular time period, or if recovering an original credential might be a
useful feature to provide.
      </p>
      <p>
<dfn>Complete deletion</dfn> purges all information related to a given
<a>verifiable credential</a> or <a>verifiable presentation</a> in a way that
is unrecoverable. This mode of operation can be useful when removing information
that is outdated and beyond the needs of any audit or when responding to any
sort of "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten">right
to be forgotten</a>" request.
      </p>
      <p>
When deleting a <a>verifiable credential</a>, handling of its status
information needs to be considered. Some use cases might call for deletion
of a particular <a>verifiable credential</a> to also set the revocation
and suspension bits of that <a>verifiable credential</a>, such that any sort of
status check for the deleted credential fails and use of the credential is
halted.
      </p>
      <p>
Given the scenarios above, implementers are advised to allow the system actions
that occur after a delete to be configurable, such that system flexibility is
sufficient to address any <a>verifiable credential</a> use case.
      </p>
    </section>

    <section>
      <h3>Payload Sizes</h3>
      <p>Larger transactions can trigger DoS incidents. It's recommended to configure the payload size accepted by endpoints at an instance level.</p>
    </section>

    <section>
      <h3>Additional Validation</h3>
      <p>
        In most cases, simply verifying the proof might not be sufficient to properly handle the received data.
        Verifier services are expected to configure additional validation steps based on their use cases. To define such
        additional validations, implementers can refer to specifications such as
        <a data-cite="?VC-DATA-INTEGRITY#resource-integrity">Section 2.3: Resource Integrity</a> and
        <a data-cite="?VC-DATA-INTEGRITY#Contexts and Vocabularies">Section 2.4: Contexts and Vocabularies</a>
        in the [[[?VC-DATA-INTEGRITY]]] specification where further information can be found about
        context handling and integrity verification.
      </p>
      <p>
        Improper validation will often lead to security vulnerabilities.
      </p>
      <p>
        Additional validation steps can be accounted for when returning a verification response object,
        through the problem details.
      </p>
    </section>

  </section>

  <section class="appendix">
    <h2>Acknowledgements</h2>
    <p>
The Working Group thanks the following individuals for their contributions
to this specification: <span class="issue">The final list of acknowledgements
will be compiled at the end of the Candidate Recommendation phase.</span>
    </p>
    <p>
Portions of the work on this specification have been funded by the United States
Department of Homeland Security's Silicon Valley Innovation Program under
contracts
70RSAT20T00000003,
70RSAT20T00000010,
70RSAT20T00000029,
70RSAT20T00000031,
70RSAT20T00000033,
and
70RSAT20T00000043.
The content of this specification does not necessarily
reflect the position or the policy of the U.S. Government and no official
endorsement should be inferred.
    </p>

    <p>
Development of this specification has
also been supported by the <a href="https://w3c-ccg.github.io/">W3C Credentials
Community Group</a>, chaired by Kim Hamilton Duffy, Heather Vescent,
and Wayne Chang.
    </p>

  </section>

</body>
</html>