Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
268 lines (183 loc) · 15.2 KB

present-proof-v3.md

File metadata and controls

268 lines (183 loc) · 15.2 KB
Raw

Present Proof Protocol 3.0

Version Change Log

3.0

  • Align Attachments with DIDComm V2 format

2.0 - Alignment with RFC 0453 Issue Credential

  • The "formats" field is added to all the messages to link the specific attachment IDs with the verifiable presentation format and version of the attachment.
  • The details that are part of each message type about the different attachment formats serves as a registry of the known formats and versions.
  • Version 2.0 uses <angle brackets> explicitly to mark all values that may vary between instances, such as identifiers and comments.

Summary

A protocol supporting a general purpose verifiable presentation exchange regardless of the specifics of the underlying verifiable presentation request and verifiable presentation format.

Motivation

We need a standard protocol for a verifier to request a presentation from a prover, and for the prover to respond by presenting a proof to the verifier. When doing that exchange, we want to provide a mechanism for the participants to negotiate the underlying format and content of the proof.

Tutorial

Name and Version

present-proof, version 3.0

Key Concepts

This protocol is about the messages to support the presentation of verifiable claims, not about the specifics of particular verifiable presentation formats. DIDComm attachments are deliberately used in messages to make the protocol agnostic to specific verifiable presentation format payloads. Links are provided in the message data element descriptions to details of specific verifiable presentation implementation data structures.

Diagrams in this protocol were made in draw.io. To make changes:

  • upload the drawing HTML from this folder to the draw.io site (Import From...GitHub),
  • make changes,
  • export the picture and HTML to your local copy of this repo, and
  • submit a pull request.

Roles

The roles are verifier and prover. The verifier requests the presentation of a proof and verifies the presentation, while the prover prepares the proof and presents it to the verifier. Optionally, although unlikely from a business sense, the prover may initiate an instance of the protocol using the propose-presentation message.

Goals

When the goals of each role are not available because of context, goal codes may be specifically included in protocol messages. This is particularly helpful to differentiate between credentials passed between the same parties for several different reasons. A goal code included should be considered to apply to the entire thread and is not necessary to be repeated on each message. Changing the goal code may be done by including the new code in a message. All goal codes are optional, and without default.

States

The following states are defined and included in the state transition table below.

States for Verifier

  • request-sent
  • proposal-received
  • presentation-received
  • abandoned
  • done

States for Prover

  • request-received
  • proposal-sent
  • presentation-sent
  • abandoned
  • done

state machine matrix

For the most part, these states map onto the transitions shown in both the state transition table above, and in the choreography diagram (below) in obvious ways. However, a few subtleties are worth highlighting:

  • The final states for both the prover and verifier are done or abandoned, and once reached, no further updates to the protocol instance are expected.

  • The ack-presentation is sent or not based on the value of will_confirm in the request-presentation. A verifier may send an ack-presentation message in response to the prover including the ~please_ack decorator in the presentation message. Whether an ack-presentation is expected or not determines whether the states presentation-sent and presentation-received are used at all in a protocol instance.

  • The ack-presentation message should reflect the business validation of the proof (does the proof satisfy the business need?) not just the cryptographic verification. Ideally, those are as tightly aligned as possible.

  • When a Prover makes a (counter-)proposal, it transitions to the proposal-sent state. This state is only present by implication in the choreography diagram; it essentially equates to the null or begin state in that the Prover does nothing until a presentation request arrives, triggering the leftmost transition for the Prover.

  • Errors might occur in various places. For example, a Prover might decide not to respond to a presentation-request or a verifier may time out waiting for the Prover to supply a presentation. Errors should trigger a problem-report. In this version of the protocol, all errors cause the state of both parties (the sender and the receiver of the problem-report) to transition to the terminal abandoned state (meaning it is no longer engaged in the protocol at all).

Choreography Diagram

present proof

Messages

The present proof protocol consists of these messages:

  • propose-presentation - Prover to Verifier (optional) - propose a presentation or send a counter-proposal in response to a request-presentation message
  • request-presentation - Verifier to Prover - request a presentation
  • presentation - Prover to Verifier - provide a presentation in response to a request

In addition, the ack and problem-report messages are adopted into the protocol for confirmation and error handling.

The messages that include attachments may use any form of the embedded attachment. In the examples below, the forms of the attachment are arbitrary.

The attachments array is to be used to enable a single presentation to be requested/delivered in different verifiable presentation formats. The ability to have multiple attachments must not be used to request/deliver multiple different presentations in a single instance of the protocol.

Propose Presentation

An optional message sent by the prover to the verifier to initiate a proof presentation process, or in response to a request-presentation message when the prover wants to propose using a different presentation format or request. Schema:

{
    "type": "https://didcomm.org/present-proof/%VER/propose-presentation",
    "id": "<uuid-propose-presentation>",
    "body": {
        "goal_code": "<goal-code>",
        "comment": "some comment",        
    },
    "attachments": [
        {
            "id": "<attachment identifier>",
            "media_type": "application/json",
            "format": "<format-and-version>",
            "data": {
                "json": "<json>"
            }
        }
    ]
}

Description of fields:

  • goal_code -- optional field that indicates the goal of the message sender.
  • comment -- a field that provides some human readable information about the proposed presentation.
  • attachments -- an array of attachments containing the presentation in the requested format(s). Accepted values for the format attribute of each attachment are provided in the per format Attachment registry immediately below.

When the prover wants to start the exchange but doesn't know what to suggest, a proposal message with no attachments may be sent. The verifier can then respond with a request for the credentials they want.

Negotiation and Preview

Negotiation prior to the delivery of the presentation can be done using the propose-presentation and request-presentation messages. The common negotiation use cases would be about the claims to go into the presentation and the format of the verifiable presentation.

Propose Attachment Registry

Presentation Format Format Value Link to Attachment Format Comment
Hyperledger Indy Proof Req hlindy/proof-req@v2.0 proof request format Used to propose as well as request proofs.
DIF Presentation Exchange dif/presentation-exchange/definitions@v1.0 propose-presentation attachment format

Request Presentation

From a verifier to a prover, the request-presentation message describes values that need to be revealed and predicates that need to be fulfilled. Schema:

{
    "type": "https://didcomm.org/present-proof/%VER/request-presentation",
    "id": "<uuid-request>",
    "body": {
        "goal_code": "<goal-code>",
        "comment": "some comment",
        "will_confirm": true,
    },
    "attachments": [
        {
            "id": "<attachment identifier>",
            "media_type": "application/json",
            "format": "<format-and-version>",
            "data":  {
                "base64": "<base64 data>"
            }
        }
    ]
}

Description of fields:

  • goal_code -- optional field that indicates the goal of the message sender.
  • comment -- a field that provides some human readable information about this request for a presentation.
  • will_confirm -- an optional field that defaults to false to indicate that the verifier will or will not send a post-presentation confirmation ack message
  • attachments -- an array of attachments containing the presentation in the requested format(s). Accepted values for the format attribute of each attachment are provided in the per format Attachment registry immediately below.

Presentation Request Attachment Registry

Presentation Format Format Value Link to Attachment Format Comment
Hyperledger Indy Proof Req hlindy/proof-req@v2.0 proof request format Used to propose as well as request proofs.
DIF Presentation Exchange dif/presentation-exchange/definitions@v1.0 propose-presentation attachment format

Presentation

This message is a response to a Presentation Request message and contains signed presentations. Schema:

{
    "type": "https://didcomm.org/present-proof/%VER/presentation",
    "id": "<uuid-presentation>",
    "body": {
        "goal_code": "<goal-code>",
    	"comment": "some comment",
    },
    "attachments": [
        {
            "id": "<attachment identifier>",
            "media_type": "application/json",
            "format": "<format-and-version>",
            "data": {
                "sha256": "f8dca1d901d18c802e6a8ce1956d4b0d17f03d9dc5e4e1f618b6a022153ef373",
                "links": ["https://ibb.co/TtgKkZY"]
            }
        }
    ]
}

Description of fields:

  • comment -- a field that provides some human readable information about this presentation.
  • goal_code -- optional field that indicates the goal of the message sender.
  • attachments -- an array of attachments containing the presentation in the requested format(s). Accepted values for the format attribute of each attachment are provided in the per format Attachment registry immediately below.

If the prover wants an acknowledgement that the presentation was accepted, this message may be decorated with the ~please-ack decorator using the OUTCOME acknowledgement request. This is not necessary if the verifier has indicated it will send an ack-presentation using the will_confirm property. Outcome in the context of this protocol is the definition of "successful" as described in Ack Presentation. Note that this is different from the default behavior as described in 0317: Please ACK Decorator. It is then best practice for the new Verifier to respond with an explicit ack message as described in the please ack decorator RFC.

Presentations Attachment Registry

Presentation Format Format Value Link to Attachment Format Comment
Hyperledger Indy Proof hlindy/proof@v2.0 proof format
DIF Presentation Exchange dif/presentation-exchange/submission@v1.0 propose-presentation attachment format

Ack Presentation

A message from the verifier to the prover that the Present Proof protocol was completed successfully and is now in the done state. The message is an adopted ack from the RFC 0015 acks protocol. The definition of "successful" in this protocol means the acceptance of the presentation in whole, i.e. the proof is verified and the contents of the proof are acknowledged.

Problem Report

A message from the verifier to the prover that follows the presentation message to indicate that the Present Proof protocol was completed unsuccessfully and is now in the abandoned state. The message is an adopted problem-report from the RFC 0015 report-problem protocol. The definition of "unsuccessful" from a business sense is up to the verifier. The elements of the problem-report message can provide information to the prover about why the protocol instance was unsuccessful.

Either party may send a problem-report message earlier in the flow to terminate the protocol before its normal conclusion.

Reference

Details are covered in the Tutorial section.

Drawbacks

The Indy format of the proposal attachment as proposed above does not allow nesting of logic along the lines of "A and either B or C if D, otherwise A and B", nor cross-credential options such as proposing a legal name issued by either (for example) a specific financial institution or government entity.

The verifiable presentation standardization work being conducted in parallel to this in DIF and the W3C Credentials Community Group (CCG) should be included in at least the Registry tables of this document, and ideally used to eliminate the need for presentation format-specific options.

Rationale and alternatives

Prior art

The existing RFC 0037 Present Proof protocol and implementations.

Unresolved questions

  • There might need to be a way to associate a payment with the present proof protocol.

Implementations

The following lists the implementations (if any) of this RFC. Please do a pull request to add your implementation. If the implementation is open source, include a link to the repo or to the implementation within the repo. Please be consistent in the "Name" field so that a mechanical processing of the RFCs can generate a list of all RFCs supported by an Aries implementation.

Name / Link Implementation Notes

|