<orie> no juan, unbound credentials don't have a subject identifier.
Michael differnet protocols for bound vs. unbound ✪
<bumblefudge> thx orie
<davidc> @identitywoman. "When we are using the OIDC Protocol to pass a VP from a holder (and this has been defined now in the draft extension) then the recipient is the RP, and the RP will call the Verifier API
<justin_richer> requesting party is not relying party! This is long established in the UMA space. (but naming is hard)
<eric_schuh> "Requesting" implies that that role will always be the initiator and I don't think that is the case in many verification use cases. Is "Recipient" a better term?
<justin_richer> and "relying party" is a very specific term from the IDAM space
<orie> presentation "sender" and "receiver"
<orie> I agree that the word "verifier" is problematic... if the verifier can store or not store, or verify or not verify
<orie> currently there is no way for a "verifieir" to "request a presentation"
<bumblefudge> maybe i'm being reductive, but if they store, they are a verifier-holder; if they don't, they're just a verifier; if they're not verifying, are they even conforming to this spec?
<orie> there is a way for a "holder to submit a presentation to a verifier/holder"
More tight scope around this work we need more time. Do folks want more time/30 min on next call to talk about specific scoping proposals. ✪
On the mailing list and on to next week - make some scoping proposals. ✪
<eric_schuh> Proposed out of scope at this point! If you have a good use case for something struck out let us know!