Thanks for that pointer. Note that RsaSignature2018 specification is neither referenced nor mentioned explicitly in the text. The VC document as written assumes a lot of JSON-LD domain knowledge before implementation, and this is going to be a problematic assumption for implementors coming at this from other domains. — Justin On Mar 19, 2019, at 10:25 AM, Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com<mailto:dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>> wrote: On 3/19/19 8:48 AM, Justin Richer wrote: I understand that the goal is to have multiple formats, but we need to reference what the formats are (or explicitly call them out as fanciful). If I’m a developer trying to build something that’s compliant, I would want to know what to put in these fields. Additionally, even if this example is using LD Proofs, the LD Proofs draft that I could find does not mention JWS or detached JWS: https://w3c-dvcg.github.io/ld-proofs/ The LD Proof specs are broken into several layers. The base layer doesn't mention JWS or any other specific signature scheme. At the higher layers, such as "RsaSignature2018", which I believe is used in all the LD proof examples in the VC data model spec, specifics like JWS should be referenced. You can see that RFC7797 is referenced in the "RsaSignature2018" spec: https://w3c-dvcg.github.io/lds-rsa2018/ -- Dave Longley CTO Digital Bazaar, Inc. http://digitalbazaar.com
Received on Tuesday, 19 March 2019 15:27:40 UTC