Versions Compared

Old Version 3

changes.mady.by.user Rodolfo Miranda

Saved on

compared with

New Version Current

changes.mady.by.user Stephen Curran

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

Excerpt
  • PRs, Issues
  • Issues to be Closed
  • ANDs and ORs
  • Progress on the anoncreds_rs implementation
  • Open Discussion

Recording of Call:

...

20230213 AnonCreds Specification Working Group Meeting Call Recording.mp4


Notices: 

This specification creating group operates under the Linux Foundation Community Specification License v1.0.

...

  • PRs for review and merging
    • AnonCreds Rust 102 – handling combinations of Revoked/Non-Revoked presentations
      • Timestamp
      • Handling of both revocable and non-revocable credentials in a single presentation in all cases (bug in older implementation).
    • ANDs and ORs in the spec. are wrong – need to update the specification.
  • Issues to Discuss – notably, issues that are ready to be closed.
  • Checkin: anoncreds-rs implementation progress, requests
    • NodeJs wrapper performance issue: https://github.com/hyperledger/aries-askar/issues/76
      • Not happening in react native 
      • Use a patched version of napi-js that solves the problem; use Node.JS 18, drop support for Node.JS 14.
      • Later switch the library - liquify.js
    • Discussion about what to do about wrappers, especially if there is a need to drop the napi-js library to overcome this issue.  Various options were discussed, and links provided:
      • Keep napi-js
    • Current work – testing with AFJ, and now working on integrating the AFJ version into Aries Bifold.
      • main branch of AFJ
      • Lots of work on getting the publishing pipeline ready – done.
      • indy-vdr based version is working – use its implementation as the basis for other ledgers
      • Need a document for how to do that in AFJ
  • Discussion from last week – having an intermediary collect presentations from holders and then share them with the final verifier.
    • Use Case:
      • A bus is visiting a secure site for which all visitors must present ID.
      • Site sends the bus operator a nonce.
      • The bus operator uses the nonce in a presentation request flow with each passenger.
      • Bus operator verifies all of the presentations.
      • The Bus operator forwards all of the presentations to the site for verification.
    • Questions:
      • Is there value in the use of the nonce in this way?
      • Does this alter the cryptography in any way?
      • Terms of use of the data received by the bus operator?
    • Discussion to be carried forward to next week.
  • Proposal: Should we move attribute encoding into the specification and out of the hands of the issuer?
    • Approach:
      • Deprecate the inclusion of encoded values from the "sign credential" process
      • If passed, recalculate and error if they don't match the canonicalization algorithm
        • If integer or string integer - leave as is
        • Else stringify and hash
      • In presentation – recalculate on use, as needed.

...