chore: backport did config using DataIntegrity proofs#37
chore: backport did config using DataIntegrity proofs#37rflechtner wants to merge 5 commits intomainfrom
Conversation
| "@kiltprotocol/es256k-jcs-2023": "latest-rc", | ||
| "@kiltprotocol/sr25519-jcs-2023": "latest-rc", | ||
| "@kiltprotocol/eddsa-jcs-2022": "latest-rc", | ||
| "@polkadot/keyring": "^12.3.2", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
packages are ready to be released if no issues are found.
Dudleyneedham
left a comment
Dudleyneedham
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Some questions to be answered
| origin: string, | ||
| did: DidUri, | ||
| { | ||
| expirationDate = new Date(Date.now() + 1000 * 60 * 60 * 24 * 365 * 5), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this a default of a year?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Does this have any purpose or is it for show? E.g. Does the chain reflect this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this solution is completely off-chain. but credential verification checks this. And it's 5 years by default, I didn't change this.
| credential: DomainLinkageCredential, | ||
| expectedOrigin: string, | ||
| expectedDid?: DidUri | ||
| { expectedDid, allowUnsafe = false }: { expectedDid?: DidUri; allowUnsafe?: boolean } = {} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
allowUnsafe is a flag that switches whether verification allows any data to be signed, supporting the credentials that are currently being used by socialKYC and the like, or whether it requires the JSON-stringified credential to be signed, securing the credential contents against manipulation.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sounds good. Do we need to document this? Considering the naming people may consider it, well frankly, unsafe.
2 participants
fixes https://github.com/KILTprotocol/ticket/issues/3179
Backporting the use of DataIntegrity proofs for DID configuration resources from #31.
Cleans up a bit of duplication in the types files as well.
How to test:
Create credentials using the CLI.
Checklist: