Use "AnonCreds" instead of "Indy" when talking about AnonCreds verifiable credentials

[swcurran]

In the various RFCs, and particularly the ones related to credential issuing (0036, 0453, and any to follow) and proof presentation (0037, 0454 and any to follow), we should use the term "AnonCreds" for the verifiable credential format and attachments rather than the current "indy". While AnonCreds was incubated in Indy and thus became synonymous with the project, it is separable from the Indy ledger and hence the Indy project, and there is no technical reason AnonCreds cannot be used with other verifiable data registries (e.g. DLTs, DID Methods or other techniques for publishing the objects necessary to use AnonCreds).

Work is currently going on to make AnonCreds a separate specification outside of the Indy open source implementations and which define a de factor standard for AnonCreds. The term "Indy" should be used when talking about the ledger, but the term "AnonCreds" should be used when talking about the verifiable credentials and verifiable presentations.

While we cannot change the existing references in messages that are approved and part of AIP 1.0 / AIP 2.0 we can put in clarifications in the RFCs to promote this terminology, and we should absolutely use "anoncreds" in future versions of existing protocols and where appropriate in new protocols.

[JamesKEbert]

Would Indy revocation also fall under this--or is it specific enough to Indy due to ledger requirements? I would think the answer would be yes (AnonCreds Revocation or AnonCreds Indy Revocation), but I wanted to confirm.

[swcurran]

Revocation is definitely part of AnonCreds. The main implementation happens to store it's objects on an Indy ledger, but that is not a requirement. As such, this should be "AnonCreds Revocation". And hopefully some day soon we'll have a new version of AnonCreds Revocation :-)