Re: ZK Verification for Issuer Claims

Thanks Christopher, I’ll take a look into this.

On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 6:30 PM Christopher Allen <
ChristopherA@lifewithalacrity.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 2:33 PM Daniel Hardman <daniel.hardman@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> If you want to know more about the arguments against a ZK approach,
>> perhaps talk to Dave Longley, who has articulated some principled concerns.
>> If you want to know more about those who are doing things like this,
>> perhaps talk to the Hyperledger Indy community. Both parties will be able
>> to give you much more detailed info.
>>
>
> In some of our more recent security & privacy architecture work, we also
> looked at some of the ZK approaches (such as BBS+ proofs) but have elected
> to instead focus on elision & redaction by a hash-tree-based graph, and
> enveloped encryption approaches. In particular, we felt that it was
> important that holders could also withhold details, not just issuers.
>
> Though our MVA (minimum viable architecture) does not conform with the
> current W3C efforts for DID 1.0 or VC 1.1 / 2.0 (though someday we might
> submit for VC 3.0), they are quite parallel, and you might find them useful
> ground for defining your own requirements.
>
> * Text "RWOT11 Topic Paper: Elision, Redaction, and Noncorrelation in
> Smart Documents":
> https://github.com/WebOfTrustInfo/rwot11-the-hague/blob/master/advance-readings/elision-redaction-correlation-smart-documents.md
>
> * Video "Envelope Privacy Requirements for Non-Correlation & Support
> Elision Redaction Reference (2022-08-17)": https://youtu.be/ubqKJAizayU
>
> -- Christopher Allen
>
>