2022-02-08: Indy DID Method Specification Call

Owned by Stephen Curran
Last updated: Feb 09, 2022 by Dominic Wörner
2 min read

Summary

  • Meeting Cadence – weekly for 30 or 60 minutes
  • Open PRs and Issues
  • Update from the implementation team
  • Interesting questions leftover from the last meeting we held, way, way back when...

Recording from the call: dummyfile.txt


Hyperledger is committed to creating a safe and welcoming

community for all. For more information

please visit the Hyperledger Code of Conduct.

Welcome and Introductions

Announcements

  • Report out on the Indy Course presented last week by Hyperledger Foundation and Indicio – Lynn Gray Bendixsen
    • 109 people at the start!

Attendees

Collaboration Channels

Online Discussion (from RocketChat this week)

This Week's Discussion:

  • Update from the implementation team
    • Walked through the process of adding the DIDDocContent to NYM
      • Assessment so far – no need for separate storage
    • Dominic's branch was very useful – especially on version
    • New take on self-certifying DIDs
    • Status of the plan?  Phase 1 deliverable.
  • GitHub PRs for review
  • GitHub Issues for review
  • Leftover from the last meeting (a long time ago...)
    • Question: Current verkey change does NOT require signature of a new verkey. Should it? No is the consensus.
    • Question: Will it be easy/possible to do "versionTime" query for a DID? Covered
    • Question: Should a "versionId" query require the seqNo be for a NYM, or should it search back on ledger for value of NYM at that time – same as "versionTime"? Covered
    • Question: The new Claim Def DID URL does NOT include the ID of the Schema. That means that you can't have the same named Claim Def using two different Schema. Is that a problem?
      • Nice to have: Analysis of Sovrin MainNet and Sovrin StagingNet to see how many instances of that exist.
    • Question: DID URL Handling for Rev Reg Entries
      • Does not use a straight, request object/return object as with other objects. Instead, may use the RevRegDelta Txn.
      • Good idea?
    • DECISION NEEDED: Schema on NetworkB, Claim_Def on NetworkB; NetworkA goes away. Can a holder proof/verify from a credential?
      • For implementers to determine:
        • What would it mean to not have the schema on the same ledger?  Is that easy to do?
        • Possible solution: Have endorsers require that they verify the schema on another ledger exists.
        • Daniel Bluhmand team to review and come back with a decision.
      • Previous discussion:
        • Possible: Put a reference on NetworkB to schema on NetworkA
        • Idea: Inter Blockchain Communication Protocol (IBC Protocol) - genesis transaction from NetA on NetB, when write reference to Schema from A to B, can include state proof
          • NetworkB becomes a client of NetworkA
          • CLAIM_DEF MUST reference the local instance of the SCHEMA
          • Extend definition of SCHEMA to include an optional reference to the original schema (DID URL and state proof from other ledgers)
        • Idea: Put this as future work?  Put this in as a consideration for issuers.
          • Don't allow for now – future work to enable cross-ledger references
          • Allow but do no extra checking – future work to constrain
        • Idea: Don't allow Claim_Def to reference object on another ledger – schema MUST be on the same ledger.
      • Options:
        • Do nothing, allow this and ignore the "network can go away" issue.
        • Do nothing, don't allow this.
        • Don't allow, but allow some way to have a local copy of the schema.
  • To Do:
    • How far to take a DID Resolver in indy-vdr 
    • Create an Indy HIPE that points to the spec.
    • Define the backlog of tasks:
      • indy-node
      • indy-plenum
      • indy-vdr
      • universal resolver image

Future Discussions: