-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
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
ucan interop with external services #1
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@Gozala thanks for putting this together so quickly!
I would not expect that a interop layer with non UCAN entities would have redelegation has a requirement. If it had, there would even be less incentive to build UCAN based system for other parties.
With the above in mind, The PK solution seems quite great. That model seems to work quite nicely for all the use cases I have in mind, while offering all the security aspects (and even accountability)
rfc/ucan-interop.md
Outdated
- 💚 The `did:key:zBridge` actor could be operated by third party or even outside system itself. | ||
- 💚 Outside system does not need to understand or worry about UCANs. | ||
- 💔 Impossible to hold outsyde system accountable. | ||
- 💔 No redelgation |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think here is more around the UCAN adoption than a tradeoff of this solution? Would not expect a interop system would give full capability of using UCANs, otherwise this would replace the need for "selling" UCANs
I had been chatting with @gobengo on related thing which inspired another mode of operation that I'd like to incorporate here: Lets assume there is an actor that simply wants oath like experience, that is public token and secret token. We could support that as follows:
|
Co-authored-by: Vasco Santos <santos.vasco10@gmail.com>
🪧 HTML View
I have been thinking how to make "sign the deal with wallet" API that would not require selling UCANs to spade team, yet avoid some secure channel between services (current spade approach) to provide some access control. I have captured some of this thinking in https://github.com/web3-storage/specs/pull/67/files
Talking with @vasco-santos earlier today I also realized we need similar thing for "failed deal" reporting, and unless misunderstood Spade is hoping storage providers can report failures directly to us instead of proxying such reports through some secure channel. So basically same challenge here.
I end up formalizing my thoughts around what are the ways ucan enabled system can interop with ucan disabled system and what are the tradeoffs. Would love your comments