2023-08-14 AnonCreds Specification Working Group Meeting
Summary
- Updates on the recent work done in removing Ursa dependencies
- PRs to Review
- Open Discussion
Call Link: https://zoom.us/j/97954159540?pwd=WWk3WmQ3MVh1SXBYZGVreGl0QllGdz09
Recording: No Meeting Held, No Recording Made
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:
- AnonCreds Specification: https://hyperledger.github.io/anoncreds-spec/
- AnonCreds Methods Registry: https://hyperledger.github.io/anoncreds-methods-registry
- AnonCreds Rust Open Source Code: https://github.com/hyperledger/anoncreds-rs
- Ledger Agnostic AnonCreds Project Page: https://github.com/orgs/hyperledger/projects/16
Meeting Preliminaries:
- Welcome and Introductions
- Announcements:
- Any updates no the Agenda?
Agenda
Open Issues
- Recent changes toward eliminating dependencies on Ursa
- AnonCreds CL Signatures
- Indy BLS Signatures
- Aries BBS Signatures
- PRs to Review
- Remaining Work
- Open discussion
Future Calls
To Dos:
- Issue to talking about what AnonCreds verifies and what is left to the issuer to verify.
- 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
- 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?
- Verifier
- 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.
- Dangers:
- 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
- Adding support for W3C Format AnonCreds to the anoncreds implementation and the spec.
- Links to be referenced in the spec and used where needed: