Use CAIP-10 in did:pkh #286
Conversation
|
This will need updates since #283 was merged. |
clehner
force-pushed
the
feat/pkh-caip-10
branch
from
0f5ae2f
to
1107322
Compare
|
This PR is now updated to incorporate the specification changes from #279 and #303. This is for consistent updating of the specification, test vectors, and implementation. Test vector file names are updated to follow #303. All the old non-CAIP-10 DID documents are now kept in testing. Comparison with the commit previously reviewed by @sbihel (26cd7c5), after merging with cc @bumblefudge @oed @wyc |
| |`eth`|`eip155:1`|EcdsaSecp256k1RecoveryMethod2020|https://identity.foundation/EcdsaSecp256k1RecoverySignature2020#EcdsaSecp256k1RecoveryMethod2020| | ||
| |`celo`|`eip155:42220`|EcdsaSecp256k1RecoveryMethod2020|https://identity.foundation/EcdsaSecp256k1RecoverySignature2020#EcdsaSecp256k1RecoveryMethod2020| | ||
| |`poly`|`eip155:137`|EcdsaSecp256k1RecoveryMethod2020|https://identity.foundation/EcdsaSecp256k1RecoverySignature2020#EcdsaSecp256k1RecoveryMethod2020| | ||
| |`sol`|`solana`|Ed25519VerificationKey2018|https://w3id.org/security#Ed25519VerificationKey2018| |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should this say
solana:4sGjMW1sUnHzSxGspuhpqLDx6wiyjNtZ
for consistency? 🔍
(and good catch, btw, I didn't think to scour the CAIP repo for the mainnet chain_id for solana)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks to @oed for finding this reference for Solana previously.
clehner
force-pushed
the
feat/pkh-caip-10
branch
from
1107322
to
0096b44
Compare
- Use CAIP-10 strings as method-specific id. - Allow previous non-CAIP-10 strings as legacy behavior. - Update description of default chain behavior. - Update test vectors, and rename the previous ones. Co-authored-by: Bumblefudge <37127325+bumblefudge@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Joel Thorstensson <oed@3box.io>
Conform to updated specification draft.
clehner
force-pushed
the
feat/pkh-caip-10
branch
from
0096b44
to
85aab52
Compare
This implements CAIP-10 blockchain account identifiers as method-specific ids in
did-pkh, as proposed in #279 (#238).Support for the existing non-CAIP-10 prefixes is kept, although test vectors are removed for some of them.
Fortunately, there do not appear to be any conflicts between the namespace of CAIP-2 chain ids registered in CAIPs and the non-CAIP-10
did:pkh:prefixes used here.Non-CAIP-10
did:pkhusages are marked as deprecated in some comments, but no warnings are yet produced when resolving or otherwise using them.DID document test vector files used in this
did:pkhimplementation are referenced in thedid:pkhspecification draft in this repo. These test vectors are updated to use the new CAIP-10did:pkhformat, for consistency with #279.Existing deployments of
did:pkh:ethanddid:pkh:tzare mentioned in #279 (comment).To ensure compatibility with existing deployments, for now, some of the DID document test vectors for non-CAIP-10
did:pkhDIDs are kept in this repo and under test, but under new file names (since the URLs correponding to their previous/existing names are being updated instead, and remain referencable in #279). There are also other tests in place for all the existing non-CAIP-10did:pkhprefixes, including issued verifiable credentials, which have not yet been generated.#blockchainAccountIdwithdid:pkh:eip155