Re: Building a did:key document with a publicKeyJwk

+1

Mike Prorock
CTO, Founder
https://mesur.io/



On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 4:19 PM Wayne Chang <wyc@fastmail.fm> wrote:

> Hi Brent, DIDKit has a P-256 implementation in Rust for did-key too in
> case it helps.
>
> Here's the test:
> https://github.com/spruceid/ssi/blob/main/did-key/src/lib.rs#L299
>
> Best,
> - Wayne
>
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2021, at 3:23 PM, Brent Shambaugh wrote:
>
> Thanks Nikos and David. fwiw, my progress:
>
> There is a test vector for p-256. I'll have to try.
>
> https://github.com/transmute-industries/did-key.js/blob/master/packages/test-vectors/src/did-core-conformance/p-256/p-256.json#L4
> Also, I found that digitalbazaar did work on a npmjs package for creating
> base64urls called base64url-universal. Performing an experiment [1] tells
> me the output of doing this on a uint8array gives the same output as the
> multibase minus the "u" prefix.
>
> There is also a npmjs package called base64url. I actually found this
> before base64url-universal. Digging and questioning led me to believe that
> perhaps this wouldn't work since I was not feeding a string, however in the
> experiment [1] (now updated due to writing) it does and produces the same
> result so far. It is more in my comfort zone to
> use "base64url-universal". I noticed that base64url did not include
> TypeScript. It could be an interesting  exercise to develop my TS chops
> seeing what I can do.
> As this community is good about dogfooding, I am assuming that MAY be
> appropriate to omit the u. I'm sure I'll be spending more time reading. I
> developed the impression, perhaps by reading in some former day that
>
> "publicKeyBase58"
>
> is not appropriate for NIST based keys, so one has to use publicKeyJwk, or
> at least my favorite curve for the time being, secp256r1 a.k.a P-256.
> This group seems to be greatly in favor of Ed25519. I have this curve too,
> but due to legacy reasons I am using P-256.
>
> [1] https://gist.github.com/bshambaugh/cd24355a5d40f8688a70353f64b0413b
>
> -Brent Shambaugh
>
> GitHub: https://github.com/bshambaugh
> Website: http://bshambaugh.org/
> LinkedIN: https://www.linkedin.com/in/brent-shambaugh-9b91259
> Skype: brent.shambaugh
> Twitter: https://twitter.com/Brent_Shambaugh
> WebID: http://bshambaugh.org/foaf.rdf#me
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 5:41 AM David Chadwick <D.W.Chadwick@kent.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>
> So why dont we just go ahead and define did:jwt?
>
> Kind regards
>
> David
> On 12/03/2021 10:45, Nikos Fotiou wrote:
>
> We had a similar issue, we wanted to use base64url encoded ED25519 public
> keys directly with did:key  In theory this should be supported since
> did:key uses multibase and at the end this is what we did (internally).
> Nevertheless, the specifications seem to enforce base58 encoding. I created
> this issue https://github.com/w3c-ccg/did-method-key/issues/26 but I
> didn’t receive any response. In retrospect, probably this was not the best
> place to discuss this issue 😊
>
>
>
> *From:* David Chadwick <D.W.Chadwick@kent.ac.uk> <D.W.Chadwick@kent.ac.uk>
> *Sent:* Friday, March 12, 2021 11:33 AM
> *To:* public-credentials@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: Building a did:key document with a publicKeyJwk
>
>
>
> Hi Brent
>
> we already build DID keys using RFC 7517 and I documented this many months
> ago on the list when did:key was first proposed. I suggested did:key:jwt as
> the prefix to this method but this was rejected by the did:key authors.
> Nevertheless we went ahead anyway and we have been using this encoding
> method successfully in user trials for many months.
>
> I am thinking of simply registering did:jwt as a separate method. The
> advantage of this method is that canonicalisation is not needed, base64 is
> used, human reading of the key is never needed or involved so base58 is not
> necessary.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Kind regards
>
> David
>
> On 12/03/2021 03:45, Brent Shambaugh wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
>
> I am building a did:key document. The base64url for multibase puts a u
> prefix in front. In my publicKeyJwk I keep the prefix for the x and y
> coordinates of the key. I've attached some scratch code.
>
> https://gist.github.com/bshambaugh/0996f89023b54aababe1d5ff48a6ca2b
>
> Would it be correct, or incorrect to remove the prefix? I am not sure what
> to make of RFC7518.
>
> Perhaps since the example with P-256
> https://w3c-ccg.github.io/lds-jws2020/ is missing the
>
> prefix u from https://github.com/multiformats/multibase I need to remove
> it.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Brent
>
>
>
>
>