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

Re: Thoughts about signatures, JOSE, and NIST curves (was: [PROPOSED WORK ITEM] ECDSA Secp384r1 Cryptosuite v2019)

From: Orie Steele <orie@transmute.industries>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2022 14:08:23 -0600
Message-ID: <CAN8C-_K2m-pgyYpA0tSK7yJJi2jT-HQapUUD6QzR+BFH6wf7pA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brent Shambaugh <brent.shambaugh@gmail.com>
Cc: Mike Prorock <mprorock@mesur.io>, Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
Indeed, JsonWebKey2020 works with JSON, of which JSON-LD is a subset :)

In short, it works with both.

OS
ᐧ

On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 2:06 PM Brent Shambaugh <brent.shambaugh@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Maybe I was incorrect in thinking that use of JsonWebKey2020 was
> restricted to application/did+json .
>
> Here is an example that uses the '@context' which I believe is specific to
> application/did+ld+json .
> https://www.w3.org/TR/did-core/#example-various-verification-method-types
>
> The @context property is there:
> https://www.w3.org/TR/did-core/#json-ld
>
> -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 Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 1:53 PM Brent Shambaugh <brent.shambaugh@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> While we are on the topic:
>> I am used to using JsonWebKey2020 when the contentType is
>> application/did+json . However, is it okay to also use  JsonWebKey2020 when
>> the contentType is application/did+ld+json ? At some point in time I
>> convinced myself that JsonWebKey2020 was only meant to be used with JSON,
>> and when you moved to JSON-LD it became make up your own name with
>> description and date.
>> Looking back, this may not be accurate.
>>
>> tl;dr: I am trying to resolve this question that came up yesterday:
>> https://github.com/ceramicnetwork/js-ceramic/pull/1884#issuecomment-1021524440
>>
>>
>> -Brent Shambaugh
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 12:45 PM Mike Prorock <mprorock@mesur.io> wrote:
>>
>>> big +1 to this:
>>>>
>>>> I would strongly recommend building on one or the other, or both, and
>>>> not attempting to invent anything new that is not directly compatible with
>>>> them.
>>>
>>>
>>> In general IETF is the place to look for the actual formats for Keys,
>>> Signatures, etc
>>> Those then can get leveraged and wrapped with other niceties as
>>> appropriate elsewhere (e.g. a W3C spec/standard that uses the IETF
>>> definition of ED25519 for underlying key representation etc)
>>>
>>> Mike Prorock
>>> CTO, Founder
>>> https://mesur.io/
>>>
>>

-- 
*ORIE STEELE*
Chief Technical Officer
www.transmute.industries

<https://www.transmute.industries>
Received on Wednesday, 26 January 2022 20:09:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:25:28 UTC