...
- Issue 108: Revocation Registry List Data Model
- This data model is sufficient for a holder to an AnonCreds implementation
- Within the AnonCreds implementation, the calculation of the witness must be derived from that.
- Issue 111: Validation of Identifiers - specification vs. implementation
- Change the spec. to be MUST for a URI (which includes the legacy Indy format) and that validation is required.
- Issue 107: What is the "prover_did" data item?
- Seems to be used in generating the credential, but is not used anywhere in the verification process – not shared beyond that
- Could be deprecated, with the issuer "creating" the value if not supplied
- Seems like it was an afterthought addition to the specification, that was not documented
- Second, related issue is the use of the nonce, and the fact that the nonce in the Cred Offer is different from the nonce in the Cred Request.
- Expectation (to be checkedconfirmed by Belsy) is that:
- The Issuer created CredOfferNonce is used by the holder in the CredRequest correctness_proof and verified by the Issuer
- The Holder created CredRequestNonce is used by the issuer in the Credential correctness_proof and verified by the Holder
- Expectation (to be checkedconfirmed by Belsy) is that:
- Checkin: anoncreds-rs implementation progress, requests
- Open Discussion
...
- Issue 102: AnonCreds object signed by the key of the publisher
- Which is related to Issue 74: issuer_did and schema_issuer_did should be IDs?
To Dos:
- Issue to be added and further investigation into what happens to the nonce(s) by Belsy.
- Updates to the spec. re: revocation data model, prover_did and nonces uses
- Backwards Compatibility
- PRs in (#82, #105) that seem to change public data structures – ones that are handled outside of AnonCreds and/or by two or more participants (issuer, holder, verifier)
- We want to retain compatibility with existing data – credentials that have been issued and the published AnonCreds objects on which they rely.
- That extends to business logic – e.g. the handling of the objects not just by AnonCreds, AnonCreds Methods and Aries Frameworks, but also by business applications built on Aries.
- Suggestion:
- Include in the specification a statement about backward compatibility
- Perhaps this is what Ankur had planned to do?
- Formalize what data structures will be expected by AnonCreds
- This is being done throughout the specification and verified against the current implementation.
- As needed support sending and receiving data in "old" and "new" formats, but (for now) always sending "old" formats.
- TBD if there are any such cases.
- Include in the specification a statement about backward compatibility
- Ankur to add paragraph about philosophy of the AnonCreds API, styles
- Review the Issuing and Presentation sections to exclude Legacy Indy impacts, and to formalize the Abstract API for writing/reading published objects
- Cred Def Generation + PRIVATE_CRED_DEF -- non revocation, and plus revocation
- Normative/Non-normative references
- Collect from documents mentioned below (under action items) and from previous meeting
...