Summary

Recording from the call: 20210406 Indy DID Method Specification Call Recording

Welcome and Introductions

Announcements

Attendees

• Stephen Curran
• Paul

Collaboration Channels

• Current hackmd document 
• indy-did-method on RocketChat - https://chat.hyperledger.org/channel/indy-did-method
• indy-did-method repo: ReSpec vs. SpecUp

...

• Other Indy Ledger Objects as DIDs (e.g. schema, etc):
  • Code and documentation:
    • https://github.com/hyperledger/indy-node/blob/master/indy_node/server/request_handlers/read_req_handlers/get_claim_def_handler.py
    • https://github.com/hyperledger/indy-node/blob/master/docs/source/requests.md
       
  • Rule: Only allow cross-ledger references for DIDs CLAIM_DEFs, and SCHEMA – all other ledger references are assumed to be on the same ledger
    • All objects must be on the same ledger as their creating controller
    • CLAIM_DEFs may reference SCHEMA on the same or another ledger
    • REV_REG_* objects must be on the same ledger as the related CLAIM_DEF
  • Add resource resolution via Sequence Number: did:indy:sovrin:56495?resource=true, which returns the ledger object at that location
  • Change schema identifiers outside of the ledger to: did:indy:sovrin:F72i3Y3Q4i466efjYJYCHM:2:npdb:4.3.4
  • Change CLAIM_DEF identifiers outside of the ledger to:
    • If Schema on the same ledger: did:indy:sovrin:5nDyJVP1NrcPAttP3xwMB9:3:CL:56495:npdb
    • If Schema is on a different ledger: did:indy:sovrin:5nDyJVP1NrcPAttP3xwMB9:3:CL:did:indy:idunion:56495:npdb
  • Revocation Registry identifiers don't change and are assumed to be on the same ledger as the respective Claim Def:
    
    • REVOC_REG_DEF: "5nDyJVP1NrcPAttP3xwMB9:4:5nDyJVP1NrcPAttP3xwMB9:3:CL:56495:npdb:CL_ACCUM:TAG1"
      • (<nym_id>:<ver>:<cd_nym_id>:<ver>:<sig>:<seqno>:<?>:<?>:<tag>)
    • REVOC_REG_ENTRY: "5:5nDyJVP1NrcPAttP3xwMB9:4:5nDyJVP1NrcPAttP3xwMB9:3:CL:56495:npdb:CL_ACCUM:TAG1"
      • (<?>:<nym_id>:<ver>:<cd_nym_id>:<ver>:<sig>:<seqno>:<?>:<?>:<tag>)
  • Questions:
    • Are SCHEMA and CLAIM_DEF immutable?  Yes
    • Do we need to have the SCHEMA ID within the CLAIM_DEF ID?  Not needed – it is included in what is returned.
    • Could we use a path for the object, e.g: did:indy:sovrin:5nDyJVP1NrcPAttP3xwMB9/3/CL/56495/npdb
      • did:indy:sovrin:5nDyJVP1NrcPAttP3xwMB9/CLAIM_DEF/npdb
      • did:indy:sovrin:CLAIM_DEF?id="5nDy..:3:CL:56495:npdb"
        
      • did:indy:sovrin:F72i3Y3Q4i466efjYJYCHM/SCHEMA/npdb/4.3.4
      • did:indy:sovrin:5nDyJVP1NrcPAttP3xwMB9?CLAIM_DEF=npdb
      • did:indy:sovrin:F72i3Y3Q4i466efjYJYCHM?SCHEMA=npdb:4.3.4
    • What does a minimal DIDDoc look like that we could use if we reference on object without "resource=true" or with "resource=false"?
      • Could return just the identifier of the object.
         

• JSON vs. JSON-LD
  • Here's a google doc that captures my thinking. I am not so emotionally or intellectually caught up in my own perspective here that I will balk if I am out-voted, but I would appreciate knowing that a thoughtful discussion about it occurred before a decision was made.
    • Link to Google Doc
• The "close-to-finished" DID Method Spec – please review
  • Perhaps not close to finished – doesn't talk about other objects yet – the conversation above 
  • At risk – DNR/DND, KERI

...