/
2023-02-06 AnonCreds Specification Working Group Meeting

2023-02-06 AnonCreds Specification Working Group Meeting

Feb 06, 2023

Summary

  • Back to prover_did – not optional/not issuer generated?

  • WQL in Presentation Request?

  • PRs

  • 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>

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

@Ariel Gentile (2060.io) <gentilester@gmail.com>

 

Related Repositories:

Meeting Preliminaries:

  • Welcome and Introductions

  • Announcements:

  • Updates the Agenda

Agenda

Open Issue

  • Issues to Discuss

    • 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 #107 what happens to prover_did?  Decisions made:

      • Rename the item to entropy  

      • Update the spec and implementation (again) to make the item required from the holder

      • Describe how the item is combined with the rev_idx (if available) and hashed to produce the credential_context and put in the VC as m2 

      • m2 can be checked by the holder to ensure it is based the provided entropy value.

    • 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

  • PRs for review and merging

    • Merged one of the two PRs in progress.

  • Checkin: anoncreds-rs implementation progress, requests

  • Discussion: Mike Lodder has proposed that a group start on "Next Gen" AnonCreds based on his this recorded presentation at out 2022-11-28 meeting

    • @Stephen Curran to find times that work for Mike and propose times for the group.

  • Discussion – having an intermediary collect presentations from holders and then share them with the final verifier.

    • Use Case:

      • A bus is visiting a secure site for which all visitors must present ID.

      • Site sends the bus operator a nonce.

      • The bus operator uses the nonce in a presentation request flow with each passenger.

      • Bus operator verifies all of the presentations.

      • The Bus operator forwards all of the presentations to the site for verification.

    • Questions:

      • Is there value in the use of the nonce in this way?

      • Does this alter the cryptography in any way?

      • Terms of use of the data received by the bus operator?

    • Discussion to be carried forward to next week.

Future Calls

To Dos:

  • 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