Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 3 Next »

Summary

  • Presentation from IBM Zurich Research Group – Revocation Scheme
  • Checkin: anoncreds-rs implementation progress, requests
  • Open Discussion

Call Link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/85188125213?pwd=UHRUVlgweFJ0T0g4SVdDUytYSkxJUT09

Recording of Call:  

Notices: 

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>


Related Repositories:

Meeting Preliminaries:

  • Welcome and Introductions
  • Announcements
    • AnonCreds Workshop – May 31, 2023, 8:00 Pacific / 17:00 Central Europe
    • Currently reviewing applications for a Hyperledger Mentorship to work on AnonCreds – the specification and implementation
  • Any updates to the Agenda?

Agenda

Open Issue

  • Update on the AnonCreds V2.0 Working Group
    • Next week: Presentation Data Models
  • Presentation: A Dynamic Accumulator-based Revocation Schema, Nitin Singh, IBM Zurich Research
  • PRs for review and merging
  • Issues to Discuss – None.
  • Checkin: anoncreds-rs implementation progress, requests
    • Seems to be pretty stable right now – most effort is in using the implementation in various frameworks.
  • Open Discussion:

Future Calls

To Dos:

  • Issue to talking about what AnonCreds verifies and what is left to the issuer to verify.
  • Issue #137 added regarding further investigation into what happens to the issuance data flow nonce(s) by Belsy – definition completed, to be added to the spec. Stephen Curran 
  • Issue #140 should WQL be allowed in a Presentation Request?
    • WQL is supported currently in the Indy SDK, but not in the Aries Frameworks
    • Should it be in the specification?
    • If so, in what form. From Sam Curren — don't call it WQL if we do include it – just describe it.
    • Not used and it is not clear there is a good reason to support it.
    • Complicates the specification and the implementation.
    • Decision:
      • Not supported in the specification – let's keep it out in this version
  • 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.
  • 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.

Action items


















  • No labels