2023-12-11 AnonCreds Working Group Meeting

Owned by Stephen Curran
Last updated: Dec 15, 2023
2 min read

Summary

  • Project Update/Discussion: AnonCreds v1.0 in the W3C Verifiable Credentials Data Model Standard format
    • Wrap up!!!
    • Exposed APIs
  • Aries Issue Credential and Present Proof attachment formats
  • Eliminating the need for an AnonCreds JSON-LD @context 
  • Open Discussion

Time: 7:00 Pacific / 16:00 Central Europe
Call Link: https://zoom.us/j/97954159540?pwd=WWk3WmQ3MVh1SXBYZGVreGl0QllGdz09

Recording:


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:
  • Any updates to the Agenda?

Agenda

Open Issues

  • Design and planning – AnonCreds v1.0 in the W3C Verifiable Credentials Data Model Standard format
    • Exposed APIs – walkthrough
    • Remaining questions:
      • VC 1.1 vs. 2.0 spec. – what would have to change?
      • Given this Email From Manu Sporny:
        • "and if Anoncreds needs to define new properties (which I'd very strongly advise against), your VC ends up w/ this context:..."
        • What is in the AnonCreds context?
        • Example use
        • Follow up questions for JSON-LD experts
  • Aries Issue Credential / Present Proof Attachments
    • Current: Indy, JSON-LD - which do we use, or should we define another that (also) handles JWTs?
  • Eliminating having a special `@context` for AnonCreds
    • What do we do about the AnonCreds @type values?
    • Can/should we move more into the proof  sections?
      • Downside is you can't look at the proof and see the IDs for the CredDef or Schema.
  • Open discussion

Future Calls

To Dos:

  • Issue to talking about what AnonCreds verifies and what is left to the issuer to verify.
  • 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.

Action items


W3C AnonCreds + AFJ Demo