- From: Pelle Braendgaard <pelle.braendgaard@consensys.net>
- Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 10:25:23 -0600
- To: Christian Lundkvist <christian.lundkvist@consensys.net>
- Cc: Mike Lodder <mike.lodder@evernym.com>, Kim Hamilton Duffy <kim@learningmachine.com>, Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CANQzS_ip471MJTaG9jpmVZJkdzJpYwJGgEExE1TV_Zm=AEsw8w@mail.gmail.com>
As long as we use the DER(?) format that most people are using we can handle both. It's encoded in the first byte. Pelle On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 9:07 AM, Christian Lundkvist < christian.lundkvist@consensys.net> wrote: > > I also agree that Secp256k1VerificationKey2018 sounds like the best fit > here. > > Another rabbit hole is the format of the key. We can have it in compressed > or uncompressed form, should this information be somewhere or should it be > inferred from the size of the key? > > Cheers, > Christian > On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 10:33 AM Mike Lodder <mike.lodder@evernym.com> > wrote: > >> +1 >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* Pelle Braendgaard <pelle.braendgaard@consensys.net> >> *Sent:* Thursday, March 29, 2018 7:52:31 AM >> *To:* Kim Hamilton Duffy >> *Cc:* Mike Lodder; Credentials Community Group >> *Subject:* Re: Secp256k1 key types standardizations >> >> I agree Kim, >> >> So I think standardizing on "Secp256k1VerificationKey2018" would be the >> most consistent. >> >> Pelle >> >> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 9:58 PM, Kim Hamilton Duffy < >> kim@learningmachine.com> wrote: >> >>> The other problem is the naming inconsistency. From the other 2 key ids >>> in the registry, (below) and from DID hardening discussions around key >>> "purpose". I'd expected the ids to follow a pattern, e.g. >>> <curve-specific><purpose>Key<date>. >>> >>> To clarify, I thought we decided that an entry in this registry would >>> map to a specific combination of JWK parameters to help avoid the problem >>> of algorithmic agility. (However, I did miss many of the later DID >>> hardening calls.) >>> >>> Given that the registry is brand new, I'd think we could impose this >>> consistency before things get out of control. Or is that not possible or >>> necessary in this case? >>> >>> - Ed25519*VerificationKey2018* >>> - Rsa*VerificationKey2018* >>> - EdDsaSAPublicKeySecp256k1 >>> >>> Either way, it's irritating to look at :) >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 11:59 AM Mike Lodder <mike.lodder@evernym.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> EdDsaSAPublicKeySecp256k1 is incorrect. EdDsa is only possible with >>>> Twisted Edward curves. This should be ECDSAPublicKeySecp256k1. >>>> >>>> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 12:48 PM, Kim Hamilton Duffy < >>>> kim@learningmachine.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> We may have a naming issue in the current LD Cryptosuite Registry; >>>>> note that we have a secp256k1key, but its identifier >>>>> (EdDsaSAPublicKeySecp256k1) isn't consistent with the others in terms of >>>>> specifying purpose. >>>>> >>>>> For context, here's the list of key identifiers currently in the >>>>> registry (https://w3c-ccg.github.io/ld-cryptosuite-registry/): >>>>> >>>>> - Ed25519VerificationKey2018 >>>>> - RsaVerificationKey2018 >>>>> - EdDsaSAPublicKeySecp256k1 <<< >>>>> >>>>> Example for EdDsaSAPublicKeySecp256k1 in the registry: >>>>> >>>>> { >>>>> "id": "did:example:123456789abcdefghi#keys-1", >>>>> "type": "EdDsaSAPublicKeySecp256k1", >>>>> "owner": "did:example:123456789abcdefghi", >>>>> "publicKeyHex": "02b97c30de767f084ce3080168ee293053ba33b235d7116a3263d29f1450936b71" >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> The DID spec uses the type name you mentioned >>>>> (Secp256k1VerificationKey2018) in the same context of a publicKey >>>>> >>>>> { >>>>> "id": "did:example:123456789abcdefghi#keys-3", >>>>> "type": "Secp256k1VerificationKey2018", >>>>> "owner": "did:example:123456789abcdefghi", >>>>> "publicKeyHex": "02b97c30de767f084ce3080168ee293053ba33b235d7116a3263d29f1450936b71" >>>>> }] >>>>> >>>>> Should we rename the identifier in the registry? Or does this have >>>>> some purpose I'm missing >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:46 AM Pelle Braendgaard < >>>>> pelle.braendgaard@consensys.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hello guys, >>>>>> I've lost count of all the variations of the secp256k1 key types I've >>>>>> seen. The latest in the DID spec is: >>>>>> >>>>>> "Secp256k1VerificationKey2018" >>>>>> >>>>>> Can we stick with that for now. I know we need to register it here >>>>>> https://w3c-ccg.github.io/ld-cryptosuite-registry/ but not quite >>>>>> sure of the process for that. >>>>>> >>>>>> For authentication I would like to use the following type copying >>>>>> from the conventions for RSA: >>>>>> >>>>>> "Secp256k1SignatureAuthentication2018" >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards >>>>>> >>>>>> Pelle >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> *Pelle Brændgaard // uPort Engineering Lead* >>>>>> pelle.braendgaard@consensys.net >>>>>> 49 Bogart St, Suite 22, Brooklyn NY 11206 >>>>>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=49+Bogart+St,+Suite+22,+Brooklyn+NY+11206&entry=gmail&source=g> >>>>>> Web <https://consensys.net/> | Twitter >>>>>> <https://twitter.com/ConsenSys> | Facebook >>>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/consensussystems> | Linkedin >>>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/consensus-systems-consensys-> | >>>>>> Newsletter >>>>>> <http://consensys.us11.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=947c9b18fc27e0b00fc2ad055&id=257df01285&utm_content=buffer1ce12&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer> >>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Kim Hamilton Duffy >>>>> CTO & Principal Architect Learning Machine >>>>> Co-chair W3C Credentials Community Group >>>>> 400 Main Street Building E19-732, Cambridge, MA 02139 >>>>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=732,+Cambridge,+MA+02139&entry=gmail&source=g> >>>>> >>>>> kim@learningmachine.com | kimhd@mit.edu >>>>> 425-652-0150 <(425)%20652-0150> | LearningMachine.com >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Mike Lodder >>>> Senior Crypto Engineer >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>> Kim Hamilton Duffy >>> CTO & Principal Architect Learning Machine >>> Co-chair W3C Credentials Community Group >>> 400 Main Street Building E19-732, Cambridge, MA 02139 >>> >>> kim@learningmachine.com | kimhd@mit.edu >>> 425-652-0150 <(425)%20652-0150> | LearningMachine.com >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> *Pelle Brændgaard // uPort Engineering Lead* >> pelle.braendgaard@consensys.net >> 49 Bogart St, Suite 22, Brooklyn NY 11206 >> <https://maps.google.com/?q=49+Bogart+St,+Suite+22,+Brooklyn+NY+11206&entry=gmail&source=g> >> Web <https://consensys.net/> | Twitter <https://twitter.com/ConsenSys> | >> Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/consensussystems> | Linkedin >> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/consensus-systems-consensys-> | >> Newsletter >> <http://consensys.us11.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=947c9b18fc27e0b00fc2ad055&id=257df01285&utm_content=buffer1ce12&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer> >> > -- *Pelle Brændgaard // uPort Engineering Lead* pelle.braendgaard@consensys.net 49 Bogart St, Suite 22, Brooklyn NY 11206 Web <https://consensys.net/> | Twitter <https://twitter.com/ConsenSys> | Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/consensussystems> | Linkedin <https://www.linkedin.com/company/consensus-systems-consensys-> | Newsletter <http://consensys.us11.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=947c9b18fc27e0b00fc2ad055&id=257df01285&utm_content=buffer1ce12&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer>
Received on Thursday, 29 March 2018 16:25:55 UTC