Page Comparison

Summary

Recording of Call: 20230220 AnonCreds v2.0 Working Group Meeting Recording.mp4 dummyfile.txt

Notices: 

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

Meeting Attendees

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

...

• Welcome and Introductions
• Announcements:
• Updates to the Agenda

Agenda

• Presentation/Agenda Slides
• Getting Organized
  • Bi-Weekly meetings on Mondays at 10:00 Pacific / 19:00 Central Europe starting Feb. 20, next meeting March 6
• Goals of the Working Group:
  • The goal of AnonCreds v2.0 is to retain and extend the privacy-preserving features of AnonCreds v1.0, while improving capabilities, performance, extensibility, and security.
• What are we starting with?Open Discussion
  • Mike's proposal from the AnonCreds Specification Working Group Meeting of 2022.11.28
    • Extends the definition of "Schema" to include a type of each claim based on how it can be used in a presentation
      • Extends the current AnonCreds (implicit) types of Integer, Hash and Scalar (blinded) to include:
        • Scalar defined by the issuer (not just the hidden blinded link secret)
        • Enumerated
        • Range (including negative)
        • Verified encrypted
      • Enables ZKPs on additional types of data, beyond the V1.0 predicates.
    • Covers issuer signing, presentation generation and verification.
    • Requires the same interactions as in the AnonCreds v1.0 specification
    • Enables the use of more signature schemes
      • Mike proposes we could choose to support:
        • CL Signatures
        • BBS+ Signatures
        • BLS Signatures
        • Pointcheval-Sanders (PS) - https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/525
      • We agree there is a benefit to be opinionated on what to use, but will ideally make it easy to swap out what we choose to use.
  • Other things to consider:
    • What data model to use – e.g. can we support the W3C Verifiable Credentials Data Model Standard?
      • Approach could be similar to what we have proposed for AnonCreds v1.0 – e.g. using JSON-LD, but don't sign the RDF tuples – sign the encoded data values as per AnonCreds.
    • What presentation request data model to use?
      • Stick with AnonCreds or switch to Presentation Exchange?
    • Revocation
  • What will the V2.0 Spec contain?
    • Much like the V1.0 spec, with pointers to the cryptography to be used that is documented elsewhere.
• Next Steps:
  • Mike is creating a HackMD document to cover the Data Models he is proposing: https://hackmd.io/@n3EfHQ0HR9-Gab_iWRQZUA/B1b0h1MjI
• Volunteers: We need additional people to lead this group. Step up, folks!

Future Calls

To Dos:

Action items

...