EBSI Profile

[steffenschwalm]

The description of EBSI profile in The Wallet List contains following failures to be solved:

• Selective Disclosure: Possible via W3CVCDM v1.1 Section 8.5 resp. v2.0 Section 9.5
• StatusList 2021 only one option see https://hub.ebsi.eu/vc-framework/credential-status-framework
• Issuance protocol: OID4VCI
• Presentation protocol: OID4VP
• Trust Managemen incl. Specst: Depends on use casem, in case of VC = https://hub.ebsi.eu/vc-framework/trust-model, in case of signatures: TrustList EU --> Standardization: ISO Tc 307, CEN JTC 19 for Registries, TL: ETSI ESI
• formal specifications: https://hub.ebsi.eu/vc-framework & https://hub.ebsi.eu/vc-framework
• credential format specs https://hub.ebsi.eu/vc-framework
• any Implementation support: https://hub.ebsi.eu/get-started/start
• Credential Format Standardization: W3C, ETSI ESI
• Credential Format encoding scheme: JSON
• Rich Semantics: yes
• Predicates yes
• Compatibility with Signing Algorithms: ECDSA, SOGIS, ETSI TS 119 312
• Status Algorithm - Recognition by government authorities: yes, (because CRL possible)
• Key Management: Key Resolution, Rotation & History Yes see DID:EBSI
• Trust Mansagement

IPR Policy: EBSI is OpenSource

[cre8]

Hello @steffenschwalm,

A profile is defined by one element of each category, because in the most cases a credential will have one signature and this algorithm supports specific features, like predicates when using ZKP approaches. However this feature is not given when using other approaches like P-256 that does not have ZKP features, but hardware support.

In case EBSI is supporting multiple approaches, pls add multiple profiles like it was done with Anoncreds with ... Otherwise the table can not be used for comparison.

Feel free to open a Pull Request to update the profile and to add more