Re: An idea regarding "jws-2020"

+1, this is how we've already approached the implementation for JWS. I'm in
favor of, and will contribute to this work.

Butters @ Salesforce | Software Architect


On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 6:30 AM Mike Prorock <mprorock@mesur.io> wrote:

> Orie,
> Thanks for this.  I am strongly in favor of "dropping URDNA2015 from
> JsonWebSignature2020, and refactor the spec to align with the vc-jws
> proposal above."
>
> This would make things significantly easier to work with for our team.
>
> Mike Prorock
> CTO, Founder
> https://mesur.io/
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 6:55 AM Orie Steele <orie@transmute.industries>
> wrote:
>
>> First, there is a proposal to change the name of the spec:
>>
>> https://github.com/w3c/vc-jws-2020/issues/31
>> https://github.com/w3c/vc-jws-2020/pull/32
>>
>> Separate from this, we now have a way to secure
>> "application/credential+ld+json", without using URDNA 2015.
>>
>> https://transmute-industries.github.io/vc-jws/
>>
>> https://github.com/transmute-industries/vc-jws/blob/main/test-vectors/generate.js#L22
>>
>> This raises questions for me on the value of retaining this "data
>> integrity suite".
>>
>> Perhaps it would be more valuable to just define how to secure the media
>> type for the core data model with JWS.
>>
>> The working group has very limited bandwidth for technical contribution.
>>
>> Since its inception, this work item has received very low contribution.
>>
>> If I had to choose between having JsonWebSignature2020 or having a W3C
>> spec that using JWS to secure the core data model (without URDNA2015),
>> I would happily take the latter... and if enough others made the same
>> choice, I see no value in the former.
>>
>> Wondering if we might drop URDNA2015 from JsonWebSignature2020, and
>> refactor the spec to align with the vc-jws proposal above.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> OS
>>
>>
>> --
>> *ORIE STEELE*
>> Chief Technical Officer
>> www.transmute.industries
>>
>> <https://www.transmute.industries>
>>
>