Page Comparison

Summary

...

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>

...

• Eliminating having a special `@context` for AnonCreds
  • Issue: https://github.com/hyperledger/anoncreds-spec/issues/192
  • HackMD: https://hackmd.io/@BYJVN-mpSCe5H3eaIw7-7g/ryk4dvIIp
  • Presentation
  • Discuss the updates needed to implement the changes
  • Idea: Having a commit-time "config" setting for 1.0 vs. 2.0 (or can we do better?)
  • Results documented in issue 192 (linked above)
• Aries Issue Credential / Present Proof Attachments
  • Current: Indy, JSON-LD - which do we use, or should we define another that (also) handles JWTs?
  • HackMD: https://hackmd.io/JEIOxf_ETnaX33kTIu7YJw?view
  • Outcome still to be defined.  Leading proposals:
    • Issue either:
      • With RFC 0592/0771 and add handling for an extra an proof type, or
      • With the new attachment format being proposed by Timo
    • Present either:
      • With RFC 0592/0771 for AnonCreds presentations and RFC 0510 (DIF Presentation Exchange) for JSON-LD presentations, or
      • With RFC 0510 for both AnonCreds and JSON-LD presentations
        • Extending the 0510 handling for generating/verifying AnonCreds presentations by automating the finding of AnonCreds source VCs for a presentation from DIF PE data, and creating a DIF PE Submission.
          • Challenge: I think (to be confirmed), an AnonCreds presentation requires including an AnonCreds-format presentation request. Can that be produced?  Should it be, since the verifier already has it...
• Open discussion

Future Calls

To Dos:

• Issue to talking about what AnonCreds verifies and what is left to the issuer to verify.
• Revocation Interval
  • Approach to determine if the holder used an acceptable RevRegistry – see this Issue comment
  • Who calls the AnonCreds method to get the Revocation Registry from the ledger for verification
    • Verifier or AnonCreds?
  • To set "validation" to true/false based on the RevRegEntry timestamp in relation to the revocation interval?  Presentation 
  • Key points:
    • 1. an RevRegEntry is “current” from the time it is written, to the time of the next RevRegEntry
    • 2. “within the interval” is based on when a RevRegEntry is “current” (see 1.), not its timestamp.
    • 3. AnonCreds or the Verifier (calling AnonCreds) should calculate “within interval” (using 2.) and mark verification true if the RevRegEntry used by the Prover is within the interval, else false.
      • Dangers:
        • False-Negatives: If a strict "timestamp used is between from, to" and not based on when a RevReg is "current" (per 2.), we will get "not verified" incorrectly.
        • False-Positives: If we don't do any checking of the timestamp and the interval, the holder could incorrectly use an old RevRegEntry.
    • 4. General point: AnonCreds should return both a summary (true/false) and if false, additional data about why it was false.
  • Decision – add an optional `at_from_ts` set of entries, one per NRP, that AnonCreds can use for determining if the holder_ts is within the Presentation Request interval.

...