W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > June 2020

RE: New Work Item Proposal: Universal Wallet 2020

From: John, Anil <anil.john@hq.dhs.gov>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 20:21:14 +0000
To: "W3C Credentials CG (Public List)" <public-credentials@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BL0PR0901MB43225437ACE7FFBA7375FBEDC5950@BL0PR0901MB4322.namprd09.prod.outlook.com>

Would you envision this being able to support PKI based credentials?

With the heavy use of mobile devices a reality, the USG some time ago implemented something that is termed a “Derived Personal Identity Verification (PIV) Credential” ( https://csrc.nist.gov/publications/detail/sp/800-157/final ) which is a PKI credential that is “derived” from our existing Smart Card (PIV Card).

“Derived PIV Credentials … leverages identity proofing and vetting results of current and valid credentials. When applied to PIV, identity proofing and vetting processes do not have to be repeated to issue a Derived PIV Credential. Instead, the user proves possession of a valid PIV Card to receive a Derived PIV Credential”

As an FYI, the Technical Topic Area #3 of our current open solicitation (which also existed in our prior Release 1) envisioned a unified wallet infrastructure that could support DIDs/VCs as well as Derived Credentials, while also implementing fully documented, open, royalty free, free to implement and fully interoperable interfaces to the Issuer, Verifier and any type of a Resilient Registry Infrastructure.

To date, the vision and reality of this particular TTA have only had a passing acquaintance with each other : -)

Best Regards,


Anil John
Technical Director, Silicon Valley Innovation Program
Science and Technology Directorate
US Department of Homeland Security
Washington, DC, USA

Email Response Time – 24 Hours


From: Orie Steele <orie@transmute.industries>
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2020 3:31 PM
To: W3C Credentials CG (Public List) <public-credentials@w3.org>
Subject: New Work Item Proposal: Universal Wallet 2020

Hi All,

I'm writing this list to propose a new W3C CCG Work Item "universal-wallet-2020":

Repo: https://github.com/transmute-industries/universal-wallet<https://urldefense.us/v3/__https:/github.com/transmute-industries/universal-wallet__;!!BClRuOV5cvtbuNI!S4BxVQn949xifVocIoP6XNV9Dvimv8hbHVFYvZfzbWnZbhdyj2CeDpGkbtPCNbbje3ux$>
Spec: https://transmute-industries.github.io/universal-wallet/<https://urldefense.us/v3/__https:/transmute-industries.github.io/universal-wallet/__;!!BClRuOV5cvtbuNI!S4BxVQn949xifVocIoP6XNV9Dvimv8hbHVFYvZfzbWnZbhdyj2CeDpGkbtPCNRzsU4h2$>

The proposed specification will define a data model and abstract interfaces for digital wallets that store currency, credentials, key material or references to key material, meta data, and cards... The goal being to help unify DIDs, VCs,  and cryptocurrency wallet data models, by defining missing vocabulary or defining relationships between existing vocabulary, reusing existing specifications as much as possible without modification.... Including DIDs, DID Key, VCs, VC HTTP APIs, WebKMS, VP Request Spec, Presentation Exchange, etc...

We're not proposing anyone change any of their existing wallets. We're proposing a specification describing a way for them to import and export wallet contents according to a data model, and to disclose support for a set of abstract interfaces, as a way of enabling users to tell what features a given wallet supports (currency, identity, and/or credentials). We cannot move, what we don't understand, or that has no common portability format.

We've presented this work to the CCG, DIF and Aries WG, and gotten positive feedback, but also some concern about scope / informative vs normative statements for interfaces. We're also tracking compatibility with Indy Wallets and Secure Data Stores... and we're working to understand how to represent data structures like connections or indy credential schemas in ways that support portability and interoperability.

We'd like to continue this discussion and modify the spec in the W3C CCG with participation from the community.

We'd like to move the current reference implementation to the DIF at the same time, but we're open to keeping them co-located if thats desired, we want to be sensitive to companies that cannot (or don't desire to) commit to the reference implementation but wish to develop the spec.

Happy to answer any questions!

We're looking for additional organizations to co-edit / sponsor the development of the specification in the W3C CCG.



Chief Technical Officer

[Image removed by sender.]<https://urldefense.us/v3/__https:/www.transmute.industries__;!!BClRuOV5cvtbuNI!S4BxVQn949xifVocIoP6XNV9Dvimv8hbHVFYvZfzbWnZbhdyj2CeDpGkbtPCNeLeWU4S$>

(image/png attachment: image002.png)

(image/jpeg attachment: image003.jpg)

Received on Wednesday, 24 June 2020 20:24:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 24 June 2020 20:24:35 UTC