Re: [MINUTES] Data Integrity 2025-03-21

Hi Manu

one further question please. Shouldn't the BBS Candidate Recommendation 
normatively reference the Controlled Identifiers Proposed 
Recommendation? Both the JOSE/COSE and Data Integrity PRs do

Kind regards

David

On 24/03/2025 17:01, Manu Sporny wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 23, 2025 at 1:33 PM David Chadwick
> <d.w.chadwick@truetrust.co.uk>  wrote:
>> I have a question that I am hoping can be answered during the next data integrity meeting (or perhaps beforehand by email).
> I'll take a shot at answering over email. :)
>
>> We already have data integrity proposed Recommendations for ECDSA and Ed25519, but what about BLS12-381 and SM2? Is the data integrity meeting proposing to produce these recommendations as well?
> Data Integrity for BBS (BLS12-381) has been on the standards-track in
> the W3C VCWG for 2+ years now, and is in the Candidate Recommendation
> phase currently:
>
> https://www.w3.org/TR/vc-di-bbs/
>
> We are waiting on cryptographic review to complete on the BBS specs at
> IETF to move the specification to Proposed Recommendation. Due to the
> nature of cryptographic review at IETF's CFRG, we don't have a
> timeline (because none is given; it'll be done when it's done). I will
> note, however, that cryptographic review has already been completed
> (and passed) for the base BBS specification and we're just now waiting
> for that review to complete for the Blind BBS and Pseudonym
> specifications. If I had to take a wild guess, I'd say that 75% chance
> that it will be done by the end of the year.
>
> I am not aware of any work to generate a Data Integrity cryptosuite
> for SM2, but we tend to not get requests like that (to add SM2 key
> description) unless there are already people working on it.
>
> The design, implementation, and deployment of Data Integrity
> cryptosuite specifications is decentralized, so it's not possible for
> us to know about every type of Data Integrity cryptosuite that people
> might be developing. All we know is that someone wanted us to specify
> the key format, and usually they don't do that unless they're also
> working on a cryptosuite. :)
>
> Did that answer your question, David?
>
> -- manu
>