Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Oct 29, 2019. It is now read-only.

Definition of a valid value property of a public key is vague. #105

Closed
gjgd opened this issue Sep 28, 2018 · 3 comments
Closed

Definition of a valid value property of a public key is vague. #105

gjgd opened this issue Sep 28, 2018 · 3 comments
Labels
clarify There is consensus, but the spec needs clarifying

Comments

@gjgd
Copy link

gjgd commented Sep 28, 2018

According to the examples given here, it is not clear if the format of the value property for a public key should be publicKey<ENCODING> or if it can be anything (eg ethereumAddress like in the Uport's repo )

@rhiaro rhiaro added the clarify There is consensus, but the spec needs clarifying label Jan 25, 2019
@aljones15
Copy link
Contributor

aljones15 commented Jun 11, 2019

I agree with this one and I think the current spec is even more confusing:

The value of the publicKey property MUST be an array of public keys, and every public key property MUST be in the Linked Data Cryptographic Suite Registry.

I believe value property refers to one of:

The following is a non-exhaustive list of public key properties used by the community: publicKeyPem, publicKeyJwk, publicKeyHex, publicKeyBase64, publicKeyBase58, publicKeyMultibase, ethereumAddress.

I think it would be clearer if reworded:

Each public key MUST include id and type properties, and exactly one value property as defined in Linked Data Cryptography Suites and Key Formats. The array of public keys SHOULD NOT contain duplicate entries with the same id and different value properties with different formats.

EDIT:

just spoke to @msporny apparently this means that id and type can only be a single value
i.e. id and type can be a string or a number or a boolean but not an object or array... which does not make that much sense.

@dlongley
Copy link
Contributor

"and exactly one value property"

We should not have a requirement that a public key can't list its material in more than one format. The material should not be different, but there may be some client software that only understands publicKeyPem and other client software that only understands publicKeyBase58 ... and you should be able to list both in your public key to allow for interop with both.

@peacekeeper
Copy link
Member

I believe this has been addressed by #202 and can be closed.

@gjgd gjgd closed this as completed Aug 2, 2019
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
clarify There is consensus, but the spec needs clarifying
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants