Re: DID Hardening: Keys

>From an individual user’s perspective, such as a physician working with a
patient’s health record, it’s important that their DID, whatever the
method, be standardized relative to both authentication and signature.

In HIE of One, for example, a standardized DID enables the physician to
authenticate into any compliant patient record system. But once signed-in,
the physician has to also be able to sign and issue a verifiable
credential, such as a prescription, to the patient’s system of records.

Not all methods will be considered legally adequate for all verifiable
credentials. A prescription for a controlled substance might be subject to
federal regulation at a level where a regular prescription might not. It’s
important that the credentaling of the self-sovereign licensed professional
via DID and her verifiable credentials be consistently linked to the
verifiable credentials that she issues as a self-sovereign entity.

Adrian

On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 10:53 AM David E. Ammouial <da@weeno.net> wrote:

> >   cryptographicPurpose: "Signing"
>
> What about using the JSON Web Key (JWK, RFC7517) format for the
> cryptographic keys? It has a `key_ops` parameter that could bring the
> semantic we're looking for and is already standard.
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7517#section-4.3
>
> I realise I'm actually making two different points here:
> - requiring that the key be specified in RFC7517 format rather than
> permitting N different formats -- freedom of choice is great but it also
> brings confusion for readers and writers
> - specifically, using the `key_ops` parameter for the key's purpose
>
> --
> David
>
> --

Adrian Gropper MD

PROTECT YOUR FUTURE - RESTORE Health Privacy!
HELP us fight for the right to control personal health data.
DONATE: https://patientprivacyrights.org/donate-3/