W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > January 2022

Re: Future-proofing VCs via multiple signatures

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2022 11:55:38 -0500
To: "public-credentials@w3.org" <public-credentials@w3.org>
Message-ID: <b09bad1e-5774-d6fc-4172-0d7ba02f2abe@digitalbazaar.com>
On 1/14/22 4:34 AM, Brian Richter wrote:
> It talks about the proofChain key in the VC but doesn't go into much detail
> about it and the example looks the same as the proof set to me.. Could you
> explain what that key is?

Woops! That's because there's a bug in the example in the spec, well spotted,
Brian, and apologies for that. It's fixed now (force refresh to see it):

https://w3c-ccg.github.io/data-integrity-spec/#example-a-proof-chain-in-a-data-document

One design of proof chains, which were initially contemplated, expresses the
concept via a "proofChain" property. The other approach is discussed in the
issue Eugeniu pointed to (just extend via proof type):

https://github.com/w3c-ccg/data-integrity-spec/issues/26

Both approaches are technically sound, so we'd need to debate the merits and
draw-backs of each. If I had to bet on one winning out, it's the one that is
compatible w/ the VC Data Model (uses the `proof` property), and just defines
a proof type like "ProofChain2022". I'll note that this same approach could be
used for M-of-N multi-sig proof types... so, I doubt the one in the spec
survives a standardization round.

Hope that helps, sorry about the bug, should be fixed now. Does that answer
your question, or were you asking more from a "how does the algorithm work?"
perspective?

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
News: Digital Bazaar Announces New Case Studies (2021)
https://www.digitalbazaar.com/
Received on Friday, 14 January 2022 16:55:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 14 January 2022 16:55:56 UTC