Skip to content

Clarify that multiple proof mechanisms are supported. #531

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Apr 13, 2019
Merged

Clarify that multiple proof mechanisms are supported. #531

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
d610213
Clarify that multiple proof mechanisms are supported.
msporny Apr 7, 2019
1331999
Clarify that the specification has more than one goal.
msporny Apr 7, 2019
2760073
Apply suggestions from @chaals.
msporny Apr 7, 2019
56a7b6b
Apply suggestions by @jricher.
msporny Apr 13, 2019
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
10 changes: 10 additions & 0 deletions common.js
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -66,6 +66,16 @@ var vcwg = {
status: "CG-DRAFT",
publisher: "Digital Verification Community Group"
},
"CL-SIGNATURES": {
title: "A Signature Scheme with Efficient Protocols",
href: "http://groups.csail.mit.edu/cis/pubs/lysyanskaya/cl02b.pdf",
authors: [
"Jan Camenisch",
"Anna Lysyanskaya"
],
status: "Peer Reviewed Paper",
publisher: "IBM Research"
},
// aliases to known references
"HTTP-SIGNATURES": {
aliasOf: "http-signatures"
Expand Down
22 changes: 21 additions & 1 deletion index.html
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -559,6 +559,26 @@ <h3>Use Cases and Requirements</h3>
or <a>verifiers</a>, because the conformance of ecosystem roles are highly
application, use case, and market vertical specific.
</p>

<p>
Digital proof mechanisms, a subset of which are digital signatures, are required
to ensure the protection of a <a>verifiable credential</a>. Having and
validating proofs, which may be dependent on the syntax of the proof
(for example, using the JWS of a JWT for proofing a key holder), are
an essential part of processing a <a>verifiable credential</a>. At the time
of publication, Working Group members had implemented
<a>verifiable credentials</a> using at least three proof mechanisms:
JSON Web Tokens [[JWT]], Linked Data Signatures [[?LD-SIGNATURES]], and
Camenisch-Lysyanskaya Zero-Knowledge Proofs [[?CL-SIGNATURES]]. The group
expects some of these mechanisms, as well as new ones, to mature independently
and become standardized in time. Given that there are multiple valid
proof mechanisms, this specification does not standardize on any
single digital signature mechanism. One of the goals of this specification is to
provide a data model that can be protected by a variety of current and future
digital proof mechanisms. Conformance to this specification does not
depend on the details of a particular proof mechanism; it requires clearly
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This makes it sound like the proof doesn't matter, where in practice the proofing mechanism for the credential is what makes it trustable within a real system. This important aspect of VC's might get lost by someone reading this paragraph. I would recommend adding text that having and validating a proof are an essential part of processing a VC but that the details of validating or applying the proof/signature are outside the scope of this specification.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Fixed in 56a7b6b.

identifying the mechanism a <a>verifiable credential</a> uses.
</p>
</section>

</section>
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -3025,7 +3045,7 @@ <h4>Relation to the Verifiable Credentials Data Model</h4>
use of specific JWT-registered <a>claim</a> names and specific JWS-registered
header parameter names to allow systems based on JWT to comply with this
specification. If these specific <a>claim</a> names and header parameters are
present, their respective counterpart in the standard
present, their respective counterpart in the standard
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This looks like a spurious change

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Some of the folks that provide PRs don't have "strip trailing whitespace" turned on in their text editor. Rather than being super pedantic about it, I tend to just accept those PRs, knowing that my editor will eventually strip that trailing whitespace. It is unfortunate that doing so makes it look like there are spurious changes, but I have been unable to train everyone that produce PRs in proper trailing whitespace hygiene :).

<a>verifiable credential</a> and <a>verifiable presentation</a> MAY be omitted
to avoid duplication.
</p>
Expand Down