-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 516
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
Add vcdm 2.0 model and context #3436
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Add vcdm 2.0 model and context #3436
Conversation
Signed-off-by: PatStLouis <patrick.st-louis@opsecid.ca>
… date with vcdm 1.1 Signed-off-by: PatStLouis <patrick.st-louis@opsecid.ca>
Signed-off-by: PatStLouis <patrick.st-louis@opsecid.ca>
Signed-off-by: PatStLouis <patrick.st-louis@opsecid.ca>
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.
Just some early review comments
@@ -271,6 +274,12 @@ async def prepare_credential( | |||
and SECURITY_CONTEXT_ED25519_2020_URL not in credential.context_urls | |||
): | |||
credential.add_context(SECURITY_CONTEXT_ED25519_2020_URL) | |||
# Limit VCDM 2.0 with Ed25519Signature2020 | |||
elif ( | |||
options.proof_type == Ed25519Signature2018.signature_type |
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.
Perhaps better to have options.proof_type != Ed25519Signature2020.signature_type
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 disagree, maybe I should change the comment. We want to explicitly prevent the 2018 version, other types might be fine down the line. I mentioned 2020 because this is the only other current registered type, but the BLS2020 stuff would be okay as well.
The limitation of 2018 is because it was implicitly included in the vcdm 1.1 context, while 2020 has its own unique context url.
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.
That makes sense. Soon after I commented, I thought that the best would be for there to be a list of supported signature types, and then the condition would just assert the requested type is in the list. That would allow the error message to indicate "please use one of the supported types: ", and can easily be expanded in the future
@PatStLouis I think it might be wise to get this "basic" support merged and then worry about integration with DIDComm ICv2 and PPv2 in a future PR. |
@dbluhm I agree, I want at the minimum for the models not to break, since the didcomm protocols use the vc models |
Signed-off-by: PatStLouis <patrick.st-louis@opsecid.ca>
…s-cloudagent-python into vcdm-2.0-data-model-support
Quality Gate failedFailed conditions |
Signed-off-by: PatStLouis <patrick.st-louis@opsecid.ca>
Signed-off-by: PatStLouis <patrick.st-louis@opsecid.ca>
Signed-off-by: PatStLouis <patrick.st-louis@opsecid.ca>
Signed-off-by: PatStLouis <patrick.st-louis@opsecid.ca>
Signed-off-by: PatStLouis <patrick.st-louis@opsecid.ca>
Needs issuanceDate validation for vcdm 1.0 (add a current timestamp if absent)
Needs hooking up with didcomm