Re: JWT credentials

Thanks guys for your valuable input.

In this regard, how "production-ready" is the current LD signatures library
for use in a DID/Creds system? Any limitations known? Perhaps Manu or
someone else involved could provide a summary of its current state?

Regards,
Carlos

On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 11:59 PM Anders Rundgren <
anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Christopher,
>
> The scheme obviously only supports signing JSON "as is".
> However, this is compatible with JSON-LD as well.
>
> If you want to support LD canonicalization that is also possible but it
> would have to be supplied as a "crit" extension like:
>
> {
>     "Some properties to be signed":...,
>      .
>      .
>     "__cleartext_signature" {
>       "crit": ["json-ld-canonicalization"],
>       "json-ld-canonicalization": {
>         "algorithm": "JSON-LD Algorithm Identifier",
>         "sha256hash": "h64slk97gG9Ff7gg"
>       },
>       .
>       .
>       "signature": "h5e4se3w3wfgr5566d5e5s44w4waa33a3a3a3a33q"
>     }
> }
>
>
> Regarding the state of this work-item from a standards perspective, the
> question seems to be "who is your customer" which I don't have a good
> answer to.  The JSON and JOSE WGs have ceased their activities and the
> members appear to rather be targeting CBOR these days.  Personally, I don't
> believe there is a need for CBOR for dealing with "Information Systems".
>
> There is an even simpler solution in the workings:
> https://github.com/cyberphone/jws-jcs#combining-detached-jws-with-jcs-json-canonicalization-scheme
> on-line
> <https://github.com/cyberphone/jws-jcs#combining-detached-jws-with-jcs-json-canonicalization-schemeon-line>
> demo: https://mobilepki.org/jws-jcs/home
>
> Regards,
> Anders
>
> On 2018-10-04 09:25, Christopher Allen wrote:
> > (resending CC'ing all as I didn't in first iteration of this)
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 3:39 AM Anders Rundgren <
> anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com <mailto:anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>>
> wrote:
> >
> >     There is yet another alternative based on "pure JSON":
> >     https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-erdtman-jose-cleartext-jws-01
> >
> >     It seems to address the issues below.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 8:39 PM Anders Rundgren <
> anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com <mailto:anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>>
> wrote:
> >
> >     On 2018-10-04 03:27, Kim Hamilton Duffy wrote:
> >     There is yet another alternative based on "pure JSON":
> >     https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-erdtman-jose-cleartext-jws-01
> >
> >     It seems to address the issues below.
> >
> >
> > The challenge is that this draft is completely dependent on the
> canonicalization scheme, which is
> >
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rundgren-json-canonicalization-scheme-01
> >
> > What I’ve heard repeatedly is that this canonicalization scheme doesn’t
> address some number of other requirements, including supporting graph data
> models.
> >
> > I too would like to understand more precisely what these other
> requirements are so I can effectively articulate them.
> >
> > -- Christopher Allen
> >
>
>