Open kdimak opened 4 years ago
@awoie and @David-Chadwick, can you both check to see if this PR breaks your implementations?
We are not encoding our JWT keys in this way. When we first did the conformance tests there was no signature checking and we have not performed the tests since then. But the way this key is encoded will not allow us to check our signatures.
@kdimak and @David-Chadwick -- the two of you (and possibly @awoie) will have to figure out the proper encoding format, then. We are not going to be able to merge this until you have consensus.
@mirceanis what are your thoughts?
In general, I'm fine with the PR. It won't have an effect on our implementation.
But I guess @OR13 has some thoughts on how to use kid
in JWKs which correlate with keys in DID Docs.
The use of the kid
in the JWK looks correct.
The use of kid
in the header should match IMO, but i guess we save that for VC Data Model 2.0
The signature on
example-016-jwt.jwt
,example-016-jwt-presentation.jsonld
,example-016-jwt-presentation-no-iss.jsonld
,example-016-jwt-presentation-no-jti.jsonld
is fixed using the RSA key in the example config.In the existent test cases, it's not known what key was used to prepare VC JWT in the test data (e.g.
example-016-jwt.jwt
). Those defined atconfig.json.example
orconfig.json.example.jwt
do not fit.VC JWS is generated from
using RSA key from https://github.com/w3c/vc-test-suite/blob/gh-pages/config.json.example:
Closes #101