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.

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

feat: add specification for sign typed data message #35

merged 3 commits into from Sep 28, 2018


None yet
2 participants

rmw2 commented Sep 27, 2018

Add a specification for a typed data (ERC712) signature request message. The message is a JWT much like our other messages, with the difference that the typedData field, (in place of unsignedClaim) is structured according to ERC712. The JWT response also contains an explicit signature field, representing the signature over the typedData alone, while the JWT itself is signed over its entire structure, including the issuer and subject fields.

Note: The response still feels a little strange to me, I would love input from @aldigjo @simonas-notcat @pelle -- Is it fine to just wrap the concept of an ERC712 typed data and signature inside a JWT? Specifically, do we want two signatures on a single JWT, one of them inside of the object itself? Also is there still necessarily a concept of a subject?

@wafflebot wafflebot bot assigned rmw2 Sep 27, 2018

@wafflebot wafflebot bot added the review label Sep 27, 2018

@rmw2 rmw2 requested review from pelle, simonas-notcat and aldigjo Sep 27, 2018


Looks great. One small change I'd like. Can we change it to EIP712Req. It would allow us to do support future schemes easier,

Show outdated Hide outdated messages/ Outdated
doc: change type string for EIP712 request
Also replace all occurrences of ERC712 with EIP712, and remove potentially confusing use of the phrase "verified claim"
Show outdated Hide outdated messages/ Outdated

pelle approved these changes Sep 28, 2018

@pelle pelle merged commit 93f3936 into develop Sep 28, 2018

@wafflebot wafflebot bot removed the review label Sep 28, 2018

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment