/
2022-12-19 AnonCreds Specification Working Group Meeting

2022-12-19 AnonCreds Specification Working Group Meeting

Dec 19, 2022

Summary

  • Issue 102: AnonCreds object signed by the key of the publisher

  • Latest with AnonCreds W3C Verifiable Credentials Data Model Standard

  • Update on prover_did?

  • Progress on the anoncreds_rs implementation

  • Open Discussion

Recording of Call: dummyfile.txt

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.

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>

@Lance Byrd (RootsID) <lance.byrd@rootsid.com>

@Rodolfo Miranda (RootsID)<rodolfo.miranda@rootsid.com>

@Steve McCown (Anonyome Labs)<smccown@anonyome.com>



Related Repositories:

Meeting Preliminaries:

  • Welcome and Introductions

  • Announcements:

    • Next meeting: 2023.01.09

  • Updates the Agenda

Agenda

Open Issue

  • Issue 102: AnonCreds object signed by the key of the publisher

    • Which is related to Issue 74: issuer_did and schema_issuer_did should be IDs?

    • Action: Add issuerId and schemaIssuerId to the appropriate objects; add a task to the anoncreds_rs to do the same.

  • Latest on the AnonCreds W3C Verifiable Credentials Data Model Standard

    • Is it wrong to format an AnonCreds credential in the W3C Format?

  • Any update on what "prover_did" is used for during AnonCreds processing.  Notably, does the value require any special characteristics when it is used in the AnonCreds code?

    • Any insight on why it was added in the first place?

    • If we were to deprecate it as an input, would we need to use something else to replace it in the AnonCreds code?

  • Help with dependabot pull request: 113

  • Checkin: anoncreds-rs implementation progress, requests

  • Open Discussion

Future Calls

To Dos:

  • Issue to be added and further investigation into what happens to the nonce(s) by Belsy.

  • Updates to the spec. re: revocation data model, prover_did and nonces uses

  • 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.

  • Ankur to add paragraph about philosophy of the AnonCreds API, styles

  • Review the Issuing and Presentation sections to exclude Legacy Indy impacts, and to formalize the Abstract API for writing/reading published objects

  • Cred Def Generation + PRIVATE_CRED_DEF -- non revocation, and plus revocation

  • Normative/Non-normative references

    • Collect from documents mentioned below (under action items) and from previous meetings

Action items