<mprorock> In IRC type “q+” to add yourself to the queue, with an optional
Topic: Introductions and Reintroductions
Gilad_Rosner: Hello my name is gilad Rosner I've been historically a researcher and consultant in the space of digital identity and privacy and information policy and recently I joined a consultancy called luminol strategy partners that focuses on digital identity and a range of related topics and I'm particularly interested in the verifiable credentials standards work and. ✪
<anil_john_[us/dhs/svip]> What I took away from that paper is that any attempt to drive the primacy of one standard over the other will result in failure for both technical and structural issues. We need a third way!
<drummond> Kudos to Spruce for sponsoring the project.
Jack: Hey sure. You want me to briefly introduce it right now, right? ✪
Jack: Sure. So at the Autonomy Foundation, me and my colleagues Rebel have been working on an implementation using one of the verification method proof types.It's currently called verifiable conditions, and this is the W3C CCG standard we have since the last meeting updated the name to conditional proof. This is to have a less less of an acronym clash with verifiable credentials of VCs. So the first thing is that we have a PR, it's been approved by one of the other coauthors and ready to just have that name change done in your repositories. I think it also makes sense for you guys to update the repository slug as well. That's the first thing. And the second thing is we've actually implemented this condition, verifiable conditions that allows you to present delegated and multi-signature condition types inside a did document. And we've implemented a verifiable credentials library that allows you to assign verifiable credentials with multiple or delegated signatures or combinations of the two. And it uses this verified verification method standard to prove that the condition was met. So I've just shared two links. The first is a blog article that introduces the bigger scope of work having verifiable, verifiable credentials with multi-signature and delegated signatures. So that gives an overview. I think this is a this work we've done from the Decentralized Identity Foundation repositories and we've now got the links to our work there with the pull requests to a branch to represent upstream. So you can see exactly what we've done on those repositories. We haven't got a a pull request to the upstream branches yet. I think it'd be great for the community to start understanding what this standard looks like and having a more in-depth discussion probably at a later call. The second link I have there is the link to the pull request on the Verifiable conditions W3C ccg repo which we would like approved. ✪
<kaliya_identitywoman> We are looking towards Phase 2 and open to talking to companies who want to support it.
<manu_sporny> This is really interesting/exciting work -- I have concerns (of course), but really leveraging the power of what we've created here at CCG.
<manu_sporny> ... and in a way that's pleasantly new -- breath of fresh air.
<kaliya_identitywoman> can whoever has the background noise mute
<harrison_tang> Thanks, Jack!
Jack: Thanks and looking forward to some feedback and people to get excited about multi several multi-signature VCs in the like ✪
Topic: Use of VCs and DIDs in Government
<davidc> Apologies Anil
<davidc> I am currently in Spain
<mprorock> SD_JWT with dilithium?
<orie> There are a few lattice based systems for ZKP being developed, but I am not aware of any that have made their way to IETF CFRG yet.