W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > December 2017

Re: Option D

From: Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 14:45:29 -0500
To: Sam Smith <sam.smith@sovrin.org>, =Drummond Reed <drummond.reed@evernym.com>
Cc: Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
Message-ID: <6680ea5a-6d1b-aed9-331f-5256ce1b423b@digitalbazaar.com>
On 12/14/2017 02:12 PM, Sam Smith wrote:
> Key Material
> 
> {
>     id:  fragment identifier
>     type:  [crypto suite, crypto operation, version],
>     value:  the actual key.
> }

I think we should either not define "value" at a high-level and leave it
entirely up to the crypto suite to define the terms where the key
material (and in what format) can be found, or we should define some
high-level common formats like "publicKeyPem" and let crypto suites
reuse those as desired. And, really, the latter example has already been
done through the security Linked Data vocabulary.

> 
> Keys:
> [
>     1:  key material instance
> 
> ]
> 
> authentication:  key reference
> 

If the purpose of "Keys" is for key management applications, we could
just treat that like "authentication" -- it's just another application
class relation. So if we make it something more specific like
"keyManagement" it may fit in nicely. It will also dissuade implementers
from using that field for anything other than that.

I'm +1 to the spirit of this proposal, we just need to work out the
details, IMO.


-- 
Dave Longley
CTO
Digital Bazaar, Inc.
http://digitalbazaar.com
Received on Thursday, 14 December 2017 19:46:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:18:17 UTC