Re: [EXTERNAL] [jfraichot@learningmachine.com] Multi-signature Verifiable Credentials

Great work!

I'd love to hear from @Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com> @Kristina
Yasuda <Kristina.Yasuda@microsoft.com> @Tobias Looker
<tobias.looker@mattr.global> regarding multisignature JWS / CWS and
standardization and adoption.

Regards,

OS

On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 4:33 AM Jack Tanner <jack@tonomy.foundation> wrote:

> Hey all
>
> Just wanted to share an update. We have successfully implemented multiple
> signatures using the existing did-jwt and did-jwt-vc libraries by DIF. If
> you want to see a summary of the decision and strategy and invite you to
> check this one-pager summary here (feel free to comment there as well if
> you like):
>
> https://github.com/Tonomy-Foundation/Antelope-SSI-Toolkit/issues/17#issuecomment-1263319391
>
> We believe this complies with the DID, VC, JWS and JWT standards, no
> modifications are needed.
>
> You can also see the working implementation here, currently on feature
> branches from the forked repositories:
> https://github.com/Tonomy-Foundation/did-jwt
> https://github.com/Tonomy-Foundation/did-jwt-vc
>
> On Wed, 28 Sept 2022 at 14:28, Julien Fraichot <Julien.Fraichot@hyland.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Jack,
>>
>>
>>
>> With Blockcerts we are supporting multiple signature. At this moment we
>> only support chained signature, and for lack of a better option at the
>> time, we settled with the ChainedProof2021 proposal:
>> https://hackmd.io/@RYgJMHAGSlaLMaQzwYjvsQ/SJoDWwTdK (which comes with
>> this issue for context:
>> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-integrity/issues/26).
>>
>>
>>
>> I am not too favorable to having the previous proof redundant in the next
>> proof and would rather see something different, especially, as you point
>> out, that we are also hashing the previous proof in the next proof.
>>
>>
>>
>> As for the signature suite, we are mainly using MerkleProof2019, although
>> we do now also have support for EcdsaSecp256k1Signature2019 and
>> Ed25519Signature2020.
>>
>> Nothing is set in stone but I would be happy to see one standard emerge
>> that would be flexible enough for everyone.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best
>>
>>
>>
>> Julien
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *Jack Tanner <jack@tonomy.foundation>
>> *Date: *Wednesday, 28 September 2022 at 10:08
>> *To: *public-credentials@w3.org <public-credentials@w3.org>
>> *Cc: *rebal@tonomy.foundation <rebal@tonomy.foundation>, Suneet Bendre <
>> bendre.android@gmail.com>
>> *Subject: *[EXTERNAL] [jfraichot@learningmachine.com] Multi-signature
>> Verifiable Credentials
>>
>> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of Hyland. Do not click
>> links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
>> content is safe.
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi CCG
>>
>>
>>
>> Here is the presentation outlining the work that Tonomy Foundation is
>> undertaking to allow multiple signatures and delegated signatures on
>> verifiable credentials that I just gave at the weekly call. It uses the
>> existing W3C CCG's verifiable condition standard to specify such conditions
>> in the DID Document.
>>
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1DsjJOfOCMhfXJgATbQAt6Ugk9Vmbq0zVrzL8thgsGVI
>>
>>
>>
>> Please see the presentation for context. We have several questions:
>>
>>    1. What should the proof look like?
>>    2. Which VC library would make the most sense for the initial
>>    implementation?
>>
>>
>>
>> Open to hearing thoughts and opinions on the questions above.
>>
>>
>>
>> I am pasting here if the links that Orie posted in the chat during the
>> call:
>>
>>
>> https://github.com/OR13/did-jwk/blob/main/src/cli-examples/key.authenticity.json
>>
>> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/762#issuecomment-1218428660
>>
>> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/756
>>
>> https://github..com/w3c/vc-data-integrity
>> <https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-integrity>
>>
>> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/932
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Jack
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> _________________________________________
>>
>> [image: Image removed by sender.]
>>
>> Jack Tanner
>>
>> Founder and Architect | Tonomy Foundation
>>
>> p: (+31) 6 2216 5433
>>
>> w: tonomy.foundation e: jack@tonomy.foundation
>>
>> [image: Image removed by sender.] <https://twitter.com/@theblockstalk> [image:
>> Image removed by sender.] <https://www.linkedin.com/in/jack-tanner/>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------- Please consider the environment
>> before printing this e-mail -----------------------------------------
>>
>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message and any attached documents may
>> contain confidential information from Hyland Software, Inc. The information
>> is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If
>> the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or
>> agent responsible for the delivery of this message to the intended
>> recipient, the reader is hereby notified that any dissemination,
>> distribution or copying of this message or of any attached documents, or
>> the taking of any action or omission to take any action in reliance on the
>> contents of this message or of any attached documents, is strictly
>> prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify
>> the sender immediately by e-mail or telephone, at +1 (440) 788-5000, and
>> delete the original message immediately. Thank you.
>>
>
>
> --
> _________________________________________
>
> Jack Tanner
> Founder and Architect | Tonomy Foundation
> p: (+31) 6 2216 5433
> w: tonomy.foundation e: jack@tonomy.foundation
> <https://twitter.com/@theblockstalk>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/jack-tanner/>
>


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

<https://www.transmute.industries>