Skip to content
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

Jump to bottom

Revise trustchain attestor proof implementation #61

Open
sgreenbury opened this issue Feb 2, 2023 · 1 comment
Open

Revise trustchain attestor proof implementation #61

sgreenbury opened this issue Feb 2, 2023 · 1 comment
Labels
good first issue Good for newcomers

Comments

@sgreenbury
Copy link
Collaborator

sgreenbury commented Feb 2, 2023 •
edited
Loading

DID proof mechanics can be revised in the following way:

  • As the signed payload is not an encoded JSON but the hashed document, JWS would be better
  • Additionally a detached signature could would be preferable as the verification involves reconstructing the payload meaning the verification could be achieved in a single step
  • Controller field of DID document should become a list of the dDID and uDID after the update
  • Proof fields that use "controller" should replace "controller" with "attestor"
@sgreenbury sgreenbury added the good first issue Good for newcomers label Feb 2, 2023
@sgreenbury sgreenbury mentioned this issue Feb 2, 2023
Merged
@sgreenbury sgreenbury changed the title Revise proof implementation to use detached JWS over JWT Revise trustchain attestor proof implementation Feb 27, 2023
@sgreenbury
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Planned update to controller upon resolution:

  • No attestation: currently no controller -> update this to be the DID
  • UE attestation: currently UE as controller -> add both UE and DE as controllers (OneOrMany::Many())

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
good first issue Good for newcomers
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
1 participant
@sgreenbury