Open TimoGlastra opened 3 years ago
@TimoGlastra
The spec unfortunately lacks clear descriptions on these identifiers. I raised this issue requesting clarification: decentralized-identity/presentation-exchange#214.
I'm not sure if the formats are composable (Orie seems to think so - see comment in linked issue) but this is not clear from the spec.
What I think is the safest way (within the bounds of AIP 2.0) to request these two credentials would be to have format
like in the last example you showed:
"format": {
"ldp_vp": {
"proof_type": ["BbsBlsSignature2020", "Ed25519Signature2020"]
}
}
And rely on having "limit_disclosure": "required"
on one of the input_descriptor
s and the fact that currently we are targeting BBS+ as the sole scheme to enable selective disclosure. I admit we would rely on not-so-firm grounds & assumptions but otherwise see no clear way to request this with the spec as it is.
@TimoGlastra
I thought it would look more like the following
This makes sense to me as well. The VC and VP proofs are independent properties.
To me it seems weird to say BbsBlsSignature2020 but receive BbsBlsSignatureProof2020 Regardless of the previous point, you would not expect to receive BbsBlsSigantureProof2020 in the VP, but rather in the VC.
e.g., ldp_vp
= BbsBlsSignature2020
and ldp_vc
= BbsBlsSigantureProof2020
This is is related to the question I brought up during the WG call.
Let's say we want to receive the below VP. How should the
format
object look like?I thought it would look more like the following:
However reading the current RFC state I interpet it as if it should look more like the json below. I think it misses some important information here because we map from two
ldp_vp
types to a total of 3 proof types divided over the VCs and VPs.To me it seems weird to say
BbsBlsSignature2020
but receiveBbsBlsSignatureProof2020
.@llorllale @troyronda I'm not sure if I made it clear. I'll try to rephrase if not