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

Required reveal statements #23

Closed
tplooker opened this issue May 9, 2020 · 5 comments
Closed

Required reveal statements #23

tplooker opened this issue May 9, 2020 · 5 comments
Assignees
Labels
pending-close The issue will be closed in 7 days if there are no objections.

Comments

@tplooker
Copy link
Contributor

tplooker commented May 9, 2020

As per section 4.2.5 the term requiredRevealStatements is defined that allows the signer of the original assertion to indicate which statements in the sign assertion must always be revealed in a derived proof. The statement is signed by the issuer and a verifier of a derived proof must check for its existence in any derived proofs and also validate that the correct statements have been revealed.

The outstanding question is how to best represent this value, presently in the spec it is defined as an array, however when this is normalised, each element in the array becomes a seperate statement which is not required, we would prefer the requiredRevealStatements manifest as a single statement in the normalised form.

Options

  1. Use a JSON literal array (JSONLD 1.1 supports JSON literals)
  2. Encode the array values in some string delimited representation
@OR13
Copy link
Contributor

OR13 commented May 10, 2020

I suggest @json literals

@tplooker
Copy link
Contributor Author

The alternative is to use a bit stream stringified as base64, for example say there are 10 statements and the issuer would like to enforce the reveal of the first 5 statements this bit stream would be the following 1111100000 which is the base64 stringified as an attribute in the proof that must be carried through in any derived proofs

@tplooker
Copy link
Contributor Author

This would be more in-line with how we are proposing to simplify revealed statements representation in #22

@OR13 OR13 self-assigned this Apr 25, 2023
@OR13
Copy link
Contributor

OR13 commented Apr 25, 2023

We need to cover mandatory to disclose proof members for the crypto suite that requires them.

@Wind4Greg
Copy link
Collaborator

Addressed in updated document (PR #99).

@Wind4Greg Wind4Greg added pending-close The issue will be closed in 7 days if there are no objections. and removed ready-for-pr labels Dec 11, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
pending-close The issue will be closed in 7 days if there are no objections.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants