2023-02-20 AnonCreds v2.0 Working Group Meeting

Summary

  • Getting Organized
  • Goals of the Working Group
  • What are we starting with?
  • 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.

Meeting Attendees

Stephen Curran (BC Gov / Cloud Compass Computing Inc.) <swcurran@cloudcompass.ca>

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

Mike Lodder <redmike7@gmail.com>

Alex Andrei (RootsID)<alex.andrei@rootsid.com>

belsy yuen (Nymlab)<belsy@nymlab.it>

Related Repositories:

Meeting Preliminaries:

  • Welcome and Introductions
  • Announcements:
  • Updates to the Agenda

Agenda

  • Presentation/Agenda Slides
  • Getting Organized
    • Bi-Weekly meetings on Mondays at 10:00 Pacific / 19:00 Central Europe starting Feb. 20, next meeting March 6
  • Goals of the Working Group:
    • The goal of AnonCreds v2.0 is to retain and extend the privacy-preserving features of AnonCreds v1.0, while improving capabilities, performance, extensibility, and security.
  • What are we starting with?
    • Mike's proposal from the AnonCreds Specification Working Group Meeting of 2022.11.28
      • Extends the definition of "Schema" to include a type of each claim based on how it can be used in a presentation
        • Extends the current AnonCreds (implicit) types of Integer, Hash and Scalar (blinded) to include:
          • Scalar defined by the issuer (not just the hidden blinded link secret)
          • Enumerated
          • Range (including negative)
          • Verified encrypted
        • Enables ZKPs on additional types of data, beyond the V1.0 predicates.
      • Covers issuer signing, presentation generation and verification.
      • Requires the same interactions as in the AnonCreds v1.0 specification
      • Enables the use of more signature schemes
        • Mike proposes we could choose to support:
        • We agree there is a benefit to be opinionated on what to use, but will ideally make it easy to swap out what we choose to use.
    • Other things to consider:
      • What data model to use – e.g. can we support the W3C Verifiable Credentials Data Model Standard?
        • Approach could be similar to what we have proposed for AnonCreds v1.0 – e.g. using JSON-LD, but don't sign the RDF tuples – sign the encoded data values as per AnonCreds.
      • What presentation request data model to use?
        • Stick with AnonCreds or switch to Presentation Exchange?
      • Revocation
    • What will the V2.0 Spec contain?
      • Much like the V1.0 spec, with pointers to the cryptography to be used that is documented elsewhere.
  • Next Steps:
  • Volunteers: We need additional people to lead this group. Step up, folks!

Future Calls

To Dos:

Action items