- From: Kim Hamilton <kimdhamilton@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2022 20:26:04 -0800
- To: Markus Sabadello <markus@danubetech.com>
- Cc: "W3C Credentials CG (Public List)" <public-credentials@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAFmmOzfMVF2enNXM_icj7CSCuXaD5D-TX+HxuTE4vcP5FBjj3Q@mail.gmail.com>
- *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