Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 4 Next »

Summary

  • Eliminating the need for an AnonCreds JSON-LD @context 
  • Aries Issue Credential and Present Proof attachment formats
  • 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

  • Eliminating having a special `@context` for AnonCreds
  • Aries Issue Credential / Present Proof Attachments
    • Current: Indy, JSON-LD - which do we use, or should we define another that (also) handles JWTs?
    • HackMD: https://hackmd.io/JEIOxf_ETnaX33kTIu7YJw?view
    • Outcome still to be defined.  Leading proposals:
      • Issue either:
        • With RFC 0592/0771 and add handling for an extra an proof type, or
        • With the new attachment format being proposed by Timo
      • Present either:
        • With RFC 0592/0771 for AnonCreds presentations and RFC 0510 (DIF Presentation Exchange) for JSON-LD presentations, or
        • With RFC 0510 for both AnonCreds and JSON-LD presentations
          • Extending the 0510 handling for generating/verifying AnonCreds presentations by automating the finding of AnonCreds source VCs for a presentation from DIF PE data, and creating a DIF PE Submission.
            • Challenge: I think (to be confirmed), an AnonCreds presentation requires including an AnonCreds-format presentation request. Can that be produced?  Should it be, since the verifier already has it...
  • 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




















  • No labels