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
  Open discussion
  • 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...
      • NOTE: If an AnonCreds VC is to also have a non-AnonCreds DataIntegrityProof that also has holder binding, the AnonCreds VC MUST have an "id" field explicitly added, and hold a DID.  We can document that.
• Chat:
  
  • 07:07:42     From Timo Glastra : what do you think of Manu's suggestion to make the cryptosuite values the same for all and hide the differences between the three in the encoded proof value metadata?
    07:08:38     From Timo Glastra : What about: anoncreds-vc-2023, anoncreds-vc-proof-2023, anoncreds-vp-2023
    07:16:15     From Andrew Whitehead : * issuanceDate becomes validFrom
    07:26:56     From Andrew Whitehead : "@vocab": "https://www.w3.org/ns/credentials/issuer-dependent#",
    07:31:08     From Stephen Curran : https://hackmd.io/oTUuyaLdSL6PHGQNpPB-4g?both
    07:32:46     From Timo Glastra : Instead of hardcoded flag, maybe we can make this an parameter to the create credential/presentation methods?
    07:33:04     From Timo Glastra : tbis = the hardcoded flag to switch between v1/v2
    07:35:27     From Timo Glastra : https://hackmd.io/s0qKgg5VQ6WKf5cSrH7Ygw?view
    07:37:02     From Andrew Whitehead : https://hackmd.io/mpvne7noRa-Q6PVGdkS47g?view
    07:39:30     From Andrew Whitehead : https://tinyurl.com/2xbf363q
    07:45:59     From Stephen Curran : https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1QbB8U-6qccGb4jd47GjNAErE61AxNBa7KN7azM2LNQE/edit?usp=sharing
    07:54:10     From Timo Glastra : We were planning to use DIF PE for presentations yes
    08:00:44     From Timo Glastra : Current example for DIF PE: https://hackmd.io/atAmNhg7QyOVUI_CMsW_-w?view#Presentation-Definition
    08:01:06     From Timo Glastra : I'll add some more notes on how to convert between legacy and new format
    08:01:34     From Peter ani : Reacted to I'll add some more n... with ":thumbs-up"
    08:01:51     From Timo Glastra : I'm feeling quite opposed to hacking 0771 to issue multi-proof w3c credentials
    08:02:45     From Tim Bloomfield : I like the new format, but understand the time constraints
    08:02:49     From Golda Velez : @Timo Glastra we can get togther this week if you want
    08:02:57     From Timo Glastra : Reacted to "@Timo Glastra we can..." with :thumbs-up
    08:03:09     From Timo Glastra : yes might be good to get together and construct a plan
    08:03:14     From Golda Velez : Reacted to "yes might be good to..." with :100Percent

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.

...