On Mon, Dec 29, 2025 at 11:25 AM Rohan Mahy <[email protected]> wrote: > > I don't want to detract from Orie's explanation of the verified claim set, > but one correction below... > > On Mon, Dec 29, 2025 at 4:44 PM Watson Ladd <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Dec 29, 2025, 10:04 AM Orie <[email protected]> wrote: >> I'm a bit confused. As I understood it, the length of the array and >> ordering is always exposed to the verifier in the commitments that >> then get hashed together to verify the signature. > > > Small correction: the length of the *presented* array is always exposed. > However with decoy digests, that number could be any number ≥ to the actual > number of array elements. The verifier won't be sure of the actual length of > the array unless it has a disclosure for all the redacted claims in the array.
Ah right there are decoys. I think remove the nulls is probably the right solution, since they wouldn't exist in a credential that just exposed those values. > > Thanks, > -rohan -- Astra mortemque praestare gradatim _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
