burden it places from a bandwidth and processing perspective, both on the server
and the client fetching the information. In order to meet privacy expectations,
it is useful to bundle the status of large sets of credentials into a single
-list to help with herd privacy. However, doing so can place an impossible
+list to help with group privacy. However, doing so can place an impossible
burden on both the server and client if the status information is as much as a
few hundred bytes in size per credential across a population of
hundreds of millions of holders.
@@ -222,7 +222,7 @@
Introduction
constructed for 100,000 verifiable credentials that is roughly
12,500 bytes in size in the worst case. In a case where a few hundred
credentials have been revoked, the size of the list is less than a
-few hundred bytes while providing privacy in a herd of 100,000 individuals.
+few hundred bytes while providing privacy in a group of 100,000 individuals.
@@ -255,8 +255,8 @@
Conceptual Framework
Another benefit of using a bitstring is that it enables large numbers of
verifiable credential statuses to be placed in the same list.
This specification uses a minimum list length of 131,072. This
-size ensures an adequate amount of herd privacy in the average case.
-If better herd privacy is required, the bitstring can be made larger.
+size ensures an adequate amount of group privacy in the average case.
+If better group privacy is required, the bitstring can be made larger.