-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 200
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
feat: did:peer:2 and did:peer:4 support in DID Exchange #1550
Merged
TimoGlastra
merged 5 commits into
openwallet-foundation:main
from
genaris:feat/did-peer-3
Dec 14, 2023
Merged
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
18890ad
feat: did:peer:2 support in DID Exchange
genaris 7e50be0
feat: did:peer:4 support
genaris bb8c4d4
fix: addressing PR review feedback
genaris 2c58522
Merge branch 'main' into feat/did-peer-3
genaris ecf12e2
fix: only save peer did records
genaris File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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.
Does this have any security implications? I could include a did here i don't control and if the also known as was used for querying i could use another did to make it look like i also control the other did.
There should be some sort of verification between these I think if we want to use it for this use case?
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 need to think a bit more about that, because it should not be a problem when dealing with peer dids (as it is our agent who will be generating the didDoc based on the spec, and the
alsoKnownAs
is only populated where applicable) but it might be an issue in case we get a DID Exchange Request using a public/custom did.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 the context of did:peer helps answer this question as @genaris calls out but just to add color in the general case, if the DID identified in the alsoKnownAs list is resolved and the original DID is found in that DIDs alsoKnownAs list, this gives us certainty that the owner of this DID controls the other DID.
For better worded color lol, consider this note from the DID Core spec on AKA:
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.
Thanks for popping in here @dbluhm!
So we need to make sure we've verified the relation of alsoKnownAs both ways before we allow it to be queried.
Maybe we can rename it to verifiedAlsoKnownAs or something different like relatedDids you mentioned ariel.