Versions Compared

Old Version 7

changes.mady.by.user Stephen Curran

Saved on

compared with

New Version 8

changes.mady.by.user Stephen Curran

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

Summary

Excerpt
  • Revocation Registry List Data Model
  • Validation of Identifiers - specification vs. implementation
  • What is the "prover_did" data item?
  • Checkin: anoncreds-rs implementation progress, requests
  • Open Discussion

...

This specification creating group operates under the Linux Foundation Community Specification License v1.0.

Hyperledger is committed to creating a safe and welcoming

community for all. For more information

please visit the Hyperledger Code of Conduct.

Meeting Attendees

Stephen Curran (BC Gov / Cloud Compass Computing Inc.) <swcurran@cloudcompass.ca>

...

  • Issue 108: Revocation Registry List Data Model
    • This data model is sufficient for a holder to an AnonCreds implementation
    • Within the AnonCreds implementation, the calculation of the witness must be derived from that.
  • Issue 111: Validation of Identifiers - specification vs. implementation
    • Change the spec. to be MUST for a URI (which includes the legacy Indy format) and that validation is required.
  • Issue 107: What is the "prover_did" data item?
    • Seems to be used in generating the credential, but is not used anywhere in the verification process – not shared beyond that
    • Could be deprecated, with the issuer "creating" the value if not supplied
    • Seems like it was an afterthought addition to the specification, that was not documented
    • Second, related issue is the use of the nonce, and the fact that the nonce in the Cred Offer is different from the nonce in the Cred Request.
      • Expectation (to be checkedconfirmed by Belsy) is that:
        • The Issuer created CredOfferNonce is used by the holder in the CredRequest correctness_proof and verified by the Issuer
        • The Holder created CredRequestNonce is used by the issuer in the Credential correctness_proof and verified by the Holder
  • Checkin: anoncreds-rs implementation progress, requests
  • Open Discussion

...

  • Issue 102: AnonCreds object signed by the key of the publisher
    • Which is related to Issue 74: issuer_did and schema_issuer_did should be IDs?

To Dos:

  • Issue to be added and further investigation into what happens to the nonce(s) by Belsy.
  • Updates to the spec. re: revocation data model, prover_did and nonces uses
  • Backwards Compatibility
    • PRs in (#82, #105) that seem to change public data structures – ones that are handled outside of AnonCreds and/or by two or more participants (issuer, holder, verifier)
    • We want to retain compatibility with existing data – credentials that have been issued and the published AnonCreds objects on which they rely.
    • That extends to business logic – e.g. the handling of the objects not just by AnonCreds, AnonCreds Methods and Aries Frameworks, but also by business applications built on Aries.
    • Suggestion:
      • Include in the specification a statement about backward compatibility
        • Perhaps this is what Ankur had planned to do?
      • Formalize what data structures will be expected by AnonCreds
        • This is being done throughout the specification and verified against the current implementation.
      • As needed support sending and receiving data in "old" and "new" formats, but (for now) always sending "old" formats.
        • TBD if there are any such cases.
  • Ankur to add paragraph about philosophy of the AnonCreds API, styles
  • Review the Issuing and Presentation sections to exclude Legacy Indy impacts, and to formalize the Abstract API for writing/reading published objects
  • Cred Def Generation + PRIVATE_CRED_DEF -- non revocation, and plus revocation
  • Normative/Non-normative references
    • Collect from documents mentioned below (under action items) and from previous meeting

...