Verifiable or not

[JohnMoehrke]

The title indicates "Verifiable" Health Links.

• Does this mean that they must always be possible to be verified? Meaning there is no way to not use verifiability?
• Does this mean that the recipient is forced to verify, or does the recipient have the ability to verify?

[litlfred]

For the first bullet, noting that the SHL already handles non-verifiable. As such, my (not tightly held) opinion is that we should require the possibility for them to be verified. Otherwise we will likely get into a small quagmire of options and actor groupings. For the second, we don't force the recipient to verify. They should have the ability to make an operational/implementation decision. Cheers, -carl

…

On Fri, Nov 8, 2024, 17:57 John Moehrke ***@***.***> wrote: The title indicates "Verifiable" Health Links. - Does this mean that they must always be possible to be verified? Meaning there is no way to not use verifiability? - Does this mean that the recipient is forced to verify, or does the recipient have the ability to verify? — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#5>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAFBVYXS3J5A4SYEFW5VPXLZ7S7LJAVCNFSM6AAAAABRNRRCXKVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43ASLTON2WKOZSGY2DIMJSGY2DINY> . You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[JohnMoehrke]

@litlfred you seem to be using a different definition of "verifiable" than I am . I am speaking of a recipient being able to confirm that the content they receive is legitimate and not corrupted. You seem to be using the "verifiable" to indicate that the recipient must verify that THEY are legitiamte. We need to clear up this very different use of the word verifiable.

[litlfred]

Sorry for any confusion John (end of a long day) but my definition matches yours. Them="the VHLs" not the entity making use of the VHL. Does that help clarify (or am I adding more confusion as it is getting later in the night)?