Re: [PROPOSED WORK ITEM] Cryptographic Event Log

On Sun, Jul 13, 2025 at 4:23 PM Dmitri Zagidulin <dzagidulin@gmail.com> wrote:
> I fully support this work item. I think a general purpose hashed event log would be very useful (and I hope the group takes as input the format and lessons learned while developing the did:webvh method event log, and similar prior art).

Thank you Brian, Markus, and Dmitri for pointing out the core focus of
the spec -- it's a minimal, general purpose hashed event log with a
witnessing capability. It's not meant to do more than that -- the
"more" would come through application specs like a DID Method, or an
extension to ActivityPub, or an extension to C2PA, etc.

As Daniel and Leonard have pointed out, there are other specs out
there (C2PA) in the general area... and KERI, Provenance marks, and
did:webvh are very much in the same ballpark. Of those, only did:webvh
re-uses the Data Integrity spec, which is now a W3C global standard
and provides for flexibility in pulling in other proof mechanisms
(like blockchain anchors, and possibly KERI, and Provenance Marks,
etc.).

I was unaware of the comparison between Cryptographic Event Logs and
Provenance Marks and so have put that on my reading list to go through
after this week of business travel. I, sadly, missed Wolf's
presentation on PMs. A quick read through does seem like there are
some useful features in PMs (and I would presume KERI) that we should
consider.

There's also an argument that CEL disappears and is absorbed by these
other specs (or absorbs some of the features from them).

So, yes, there is work to be done here... first on a core/minimal
feature set that such a spec should have... and to do that, we'd need
one or more work items to have that discussion around. :P

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
https://www.digitalbazaar.com/

Received on Monday, 14 July 2025 01:50:39 UTC