Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Apr 16, 2020. It is now read-only.

Identity: Research #7

Closed
pgte opened this issue Jan 24, 2018 · 15 comments
Closed

Identity: Research #7

pgte opened this issue Jan 24, 2018 · 15 comments

Comments

@pgte
Copy link
Contributor

pgte commented Jan 24, 2018

Research mechanisms for nodes to provide, transmit and prove identity of actors in a decentralised web application that uses IPFS.

@pgte pgte added the Identity label Jan 24, 2018
@pgte pgte added the Research label Jan 24, 2018
@pgte pgte added this to the 2018Q1 milestone Jan 24, 2018
@pgte
Copy link
Contributor Author

pgte commented Apr 3, 2018

Some links to the latest research I've been following:

cc // @b5

@pgte pgte added the to do label Apr 3, 2018
@pgte
Copy link
Contributor Author

pgte commented Apr 4, 2018

Just found another source of definitions on Self-Sovereign Identity, this time from Sovrin (which IBM just joined):
https://sovrin.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Sovrin-Protocol-and-Token-White-Paper.pdf

//cc @b5

@pgte pgte modified the milestones: 2018Q1, 2018Q2 Apr 4, 2018
@b5
Copy link

b5 commented Apr 10, 2018

Thanks for the links @pgte, I've started compiling research into a hackpad:
https://hackmd.io/s/H17TwVqsz
I'm going to keep cranking on that until I feel up to speed on the DID (Distributed Identity) & SSI (Self Soverign Identity) landscape. Others, feel free to edit!

@pgte
Copy link
Contributor Author

pgte commented Apr 10, 2018

@b5 That's awesome, keep us posted!

@pgte
Copy link
Contributor Author

pgte commented May 4, 2018

Interesting paper to read regarding Self-Sovereign Identity (SSI):
Technical details of Sovrin:

@lanzafame
Copy link

@pgte I am linking to this ipfs/notes#292 here as a more complex use case for identities. I haven't elaborated the identities part thoroughly yet, but there are quite a few scenarios that I learnt about when participating in the medical software industry that I think would be beneficial to at least be aware of when designing ipfs identity system. I will try and get them up by the next WG meeting, which I will also attempt to attend, but no guarantees as it is 1 am for me.

@pgte
Copy link
Contributor Author

pgte commented Jun 1, 2018

@lanzafame thank you for those notes, they're super helpful!
@satazor are working on something that will lead to a collaborative knowledge-base, where they have many of these problems, he should take a look at your notes!

Obviously, the medical industry has very strong requirements regarding these subjects, with strong emphasis in identity self-sovereignty, privacy, etc. It's invaluable that you bring your knowledge to the table! :)

Also adding @joaosantos15, he's been helping us out a lot with figuring out the identity system.

@pgte
Copy link
Contributor Author

pgte commented Jun 7, 2018

This may interest you: Identity Management RFC: peer-base/peer-star#14

@pgte
Copy link
Contributor Author

pgte commented Jun 8, 2018

May be interesting checking out this article: Managing Identity with a UI for ERC 725

(via @satazor)

@satazor
Copy link

satazor commented Jun 8, 2018

The IdentityManager proposed on peer-base/peer-star#15 is very similar to what the UI for ERC 725 is but with a few differences:

  • The IdentityManager embraces several DID methods and, as a consequence, several blockchains. We will probably focus on Ethereum based DID methods first, such as uport or erc725, as Ethereum is more widely adopted and stable. You may check registry for all the available DID methods.
  • The IdentityManager is, for now, focused on a subset of Verifiable Claims: self-signed Verifiable Claims on social networks. Still, as noted in the Identity RFC & Research peer-base/peer-star#15 RFC, we should later consider all types of Verifiable Claims.
  • It's just a UI and doesn't seems to interact with DApps directly. This makes it harder for DApps developers to KYC and to handle sessions.
  • They do not tackle the problem of users interacting with DApps on several devices. It's sub-optimal to have the private key of the Wallets being replicated cross-devices. Our proposal solves this by embracing "Delegate Keys" whenever the DID method supports them. Delegate keys are regular keys that are also listed in the DID Document but have granular capabilities, like used only for authentication and signing.

@lanzafame
Copy link

lanzafame commented Jun 13, 2018

@pgte @satazor @b5 @joaosantos15 Sorry, got bogged down in cluster stuff, but I have updated the ipfs/notes#292 issue with the first identity scenario (it is at the bottom, apparently markdown anchors don't work in GitHub issues 😞 ) and it is a scenario I believe, though would love to be corrected, doesn't have a solution within any existing identity/auth infrastructure. Would love to hear some feedback 😄

@pgte
Copy link
Contributor Author

pgte commented Dec 8, 2018

Research culminated in the peer-star Identity RFC & Research PR.

@pgte pgte closed this as completed Dec 8, 2018
@ghost ghost removed the to do label Dec 8, 2018
@aschrijver
Copy link

aschrijver commented Dec 11, 2018

I was wondering if anyone could provide some good pointers to DID and SSI initiatives and projects that do not involve blockchain? Or is peer-star such project? Just asked at DID spec too: w3c-ccg/did-spec#113

@satazor
Copy link

satazor commented Dec 11, 2018

Yes, the blockchain is not a requirement. There’s a working (although outdated) DID method on IPFS, see https://github.com/jonnycrunch/ipid

This did method will probably be the first one to be supported in the IDM project that is referenced in the RFC that @pgte linked.

@aschrijver
Copy link

Thank you @satazor I'll continue to follow the development.

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants