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

Re: DIF VC-JWTs look like Linked Data Proof Verifiable Credentials

From: Kim Hamilton <kimdhamilton@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2022 20:26:04 -0800
Message-ID: <CAFmmOzfMVF2enNXM_icj7CSCuXaD5D-TX+HxuTE4vcP5FBjj3Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Markus Sabadello <markus@danubetech.com>
Cc: "W3C Credentials CG (Public List)" <public-credentials@w3.org>
   - *Correction for Markus*: was not failing -- the test suite is a doozy
   so it was just noise.
   - *Conclusion*: did-jwt-vc looks like it works.
   https://github.com/decentralized-identity/JWS-Test-Suite/pull/44
   - *Moral of this story*: time(write code) << time(discuss on mailing
   lists and github issues)
      - Even though that particular test suite is a bear
      - But I'm grateful that it exists, so thanks Orie

Sometimes it takes a lady to figure all of this out


On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 12:57 AM Markus Sabadello <markus@danubetech.com>
wrote:

> I don't think it's failing..? Do you see a problem anywhere?
>
> Markus
> On 02.03.22 05:05, Kim Hamilton wrote:
>
> Btw, is the DanubeTech implementation failing? This may be blocking the
> ability to submit test reports to that suite
>
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 1:42 PM Kim Hamilton <kimdhamilton@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> That's right; I do think did-jwt-vc can be made conformant, but there are
>> some repo/work item ownership issues to sort out. Perhaps we (Centre) can
>> help with that after we figure out who else is interested in actively
>> contributing to that repo going forward.
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 10:38 AM Charles E. Lehner <
>> charles.lehner@spruceid.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> JwtProof2020 is described as "for internal use" in DIF's did-jwt-vc
>>> library:
>>> https://github.com/decentralized-identity/did-jwt-vc#notes-on-verification-and-proof-properties
>>> > The JwtProof2020 is a synthetic proof type, usable for differentiating
>>> credentials by type. It is not a registered W3C VC Data Model algorithm and
>>> should not be treated as such.
>>>
>>> I saw a VC with this format in a demo recently, which I think suggests
>>> it may be leaking into non-internal use.
>>>
>>> I don't see a specification for it, or an IRI for the proof type. The
>>> implementation in DIF's did-jwt-vc repository produces it here:
>>>
>>> https://github.com/decentralized-identity/did-jwt-vc/blob/94fdd6f280579cc2b0b9a0125855ee13916b6b52/src/converters.ts#L173-L187
>>>
>>> https://github.com/decentralized-identity/did-jwt-vc/blob/94fdd6f280579cc2b0b9a0125855ee13916b6b52/src/converters.ts#L417-L431
>>> There does not seem to be a verifier implemented there, only the
>>> conversion from JWT-VC into VC with proof object of this type (with
>>> conversion of some properties).
>>>
>>> I think JwtProof2020 looks useful as way to convert a VC-JWT into an
>>> equivalent VC-with-proof-object. Maybe this could enable using VC-JWTs in
>>> APIs that require a VC-with-proof-object; then APIs would not need
>>> polymorphism like was proposed in
>>> https://github.com/w3c-ccg/vc-api/pull/208 .
>>> Maybe this format could encapsulate the conversion process between JOSE
>>> claims and VC fields such as is specified in the VC Data Model:
>>> https://www.w3.org/TR/vc-data-model/#jwt-encoding
>>> But it would need to be determined how to verify this proof type,
>>> including ensuring that the properties outside the JWT correspond to the
>>> JWT payload.
>>>
>>> There is some more discussion here:
>>>   https://github.com/centrehq/verite/issues/373
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Charles Lehner
>>>
>>> On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 08:08:19 -0600
>>> Orie Steele <orie@transmute.industries> <orie@transmute.industries>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Hey Folks,
>>> >
>>> > As we gear up for VCDM2.0 there are a number of VC-JWT
>>> > implementations that we are tracking and attempting to show
>>> > interoperability across.
>>> >
>>> > One of the oldest VC-JWT implementations is hosted at DIF, but it
>>> > produces VC-JWTs that are not compact JWTs ... they look more like
>>> > Linked Data Proof VCs.
>>> >
>>> > As far as I know, no other VC-JWT implementation supports this
>>> > format, aka "JwtProof2020".
>>> >
>>> > Here is a link to an issue with an example:
>>> > https://github.com/centrehq/verite/issues/373#issuecomment-1049888568
>>> >
>>> > If you have a few minutes, I would love some review of what the DIF
>>> > implementation is doing, and how we can either push it all the way
>>> > into the LD Proof camp, or all the way into the VC-JWT camp.
>>> >
>>> > Regards,
>>> >
>>> > OS
>>> >
>>>
>>>
Received on Thursday, 3 March 2022 04:26:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:25:29 UTC