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.

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

Introduce EcdsaSecp256k1Signature2019 and EcdsaSecp256k1VerificationKey2019 #12

Merged
merged 5 commits into from Jun 11, 2019

Conversation

@peacekeeper
Copy link
Member

commented May 31, 2019

Fixes #8. Fixes #9.
Replaces #4. Replaces #7.

@mikelodder7 @dlongley @kimdhamilton @ChristopherA

@peacekeeper peacekeeper requested review from msporny and talltree as code owners May 31, 2019

@dlongley

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented May 31, 2019

Would this be different from EcdsaSecp256k1Signature2019/EcdsaSecp256k1VerificationKey2019? We haven't added EcdsaSecp256k1Signature2019 to the registry yet, but we minted some terms for it in the VC data model context so it would be available to sign VCs in the future, should there be any implementers.

Has Secp256k1Signature2018/Secp256k1VerificationKey2018 been implemented in any production systems or is it just in demonstration code? Should we instead just add EcdsaSecp256k1Signature2019 to the registry and an interested implementer can create a spec for it that mirrors how the existing RsaSignature2018 and Ed25519Signature2018 function except for obvious differences (curve, etc)?

@peacekeeper

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented May 31, 2019

@dlongley I'm happy to update this PR to change ECDSASecp256k1Signature2018 to EcdsaSecp256k1Signature2019. The actual linked spec needs to be updated/replaced as well, as a next step.

My immediate interest right now is to replace EdDsaSAPublicKeySecp256k1 with Secp256k1Signature2018, which I think is current community consensus. This way we can get convergence on the various Bitcoin- and Ethereum-based DID method implementations.

@dlongley

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented May 31, 2019

@peacekeeper, that's fine -- but there's also some coordination that should be done with the core DID context (or at least the dev v0.11 version) such that whatever terms are in use are actually defined in the necessary context(s).

@peacekeeper

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented May 31, 2019

coordination that should be done with the core DID context (or at least the dev v0.11 version)

Agreed.. Where is that being maintained?

@dlongley

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented May 31, 2019

@peacekeeper,

Agreed.. Where is that being maintained?

https://github.com/w3c-ccg/did-spec/blob/gh-pages/contexts

The v1 spec is just a placeholder that is very old. The v0.11 context is better, but I suspect still a bit out-of-date with recent developments and it doesn't yet use some important JSON-LD 1.1 features like term protection.

@awoie

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jun 6, 2019

uPort uses Secp256k1VerificationKey2018 but having ethereumAddress instead of publicKeyHex which I believe might not be supported in the spec for now. @christianlundkvist could you provide more input on that because I'm lacking a bit from context of what has been discussed so far?

@peacekeeper peacekeeper changed the title Introduce Secp256k1VerificationKey2018 Introduce EcdsaSecp256k1VerificationKey2019 Jun 8, 2019

index.html Outdated
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Specification</td>
<td><a href="https://w3c-dvcg.github.io/lds-koblitz2016/">Koblitz Signature Suite 2016</a></td>
<td>(needs spec) <a href="https://w3c-dvcg.github.io/lds-secp256k1-2019/">Secp256k1 Signature Suite 2019</a></td>

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@dlongley

dlongley Jun 8, 2019

So there seems to be two different issues here. This entry should be fixed to have a type of EcdsaKoblitzSignature2016 because it already exists and the authors are correct, etc. (follow the existing https://w3c-dvcg.github.io/lds-koblitz2016/ link for the spec).

A new entry should be created for the new EcdsaSecp256k1Signature2019. Then I think we'd be good.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@peacekeeper

peacekeeper Jun 8, 2019

Author Member

Sounds good, I just restored the original entry for EcdsaKoblitzSignature2016 in addition to the new EcdsaSecp256k1Signature2019. Could you check?

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@dlongley

@peacekeeper peacekeeper changed the title Introduce EcdsaSecp256k1VerificationKey2019 Introduce EcdsaSecp256k1Signature2019 and EcdsaSecp256k1VerificationKey2019 Jun 8, 2019

@kimdhamilton kimdhamilton self-requested a review Jun 8, 2019

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
4 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.