Hadley: assuming the algo is sensible - it's a way of signing and verifying signatures of whoever issued a verifiable credentials.. They've been algo-agnostic...

Amy: is it's because they're doing cryptosuites for several different algos? E.g. Jose & Cose?

Hadley: data integrity spec does contain BBS, elliptic curve, edwards.. So yes. That being the case - miltiple crypto-suites as options for same use case - that seems good...

Amy: they've indicated "17 implementers" demonstrating interop...

Matthew: we had a look at this in APA... One of our members spotted something interesting. We did an a11y self-review... date formats... they allowed people to specify dates in different formats - we asked about it - they have replied...

Hadley: all VC?

Matthew: specific to BBS cryptosuite...

Yves: many protocols are using plain text dates... more readable... Lots of libraries process those strings...

Matthew: it seems weird... it seeems like there has been a mistake ...

Dan: seems like this is in hand

Matthew: yes doesn't seem architectural in nature... part of horizontal review.

Yves: the discussion before is about interop and what would be mandated...

Hadley: i don't see any reason to hold it up

Amy: it's following the pattern they're using for other cryptosuites - i don't have any concerns.

Hi all, Thanks for sending this our way. We are explicitly not reviewing the BBS Digital Signature Algorithm itself (for avoidance of doubt), but your cryptosuite using it seems fine to us.

We note that verifiable credentials signed with BBS aren't likely to be interoperable with those signed with other algorithms. (We recognise this is probably unavoidable, given the architecture you're using.)

Let us know if you have any specific questions or issues for us. Otherwise, we are happy to close it.

need amy or hadley

We review comments including Manu's call for the TAG to get involved and weigh in on the topic of unlinkable digital signatures.

Dan: Could we delegate this to PING?

Yves: It could be if it's part of wide review.

Hadley: I second that.

Yves: also PING should have credibility here...

Dan to contact Jeffrey and float this possibility

we need to work on a response here.... we know that PING is working on this here https://github.com/w3cping/credential-considerations .. should we just review their outputs? unknown at this point

Amy: we offered to close it... we got more comments I don't have a strong opinion because I don't have the right expertise. Everyone seems to be agreeing in the thread. I'm not sure what we can add.

Agree to post this and close with resolution SATISFIED