Feat: Added support for Ed25519Signature2020 signature type and Ed25519VerificationKey2020 #2241
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Darko Kulic <darko.kulic@sicpa.com>
Co-authored-by: Timo Glastra <timo@animo.id> Signed-off-by: Darko Kulic <36031644+dkulic@users.noreply.github.com>
|
I will fix these errors, sorry for that, but one of them is multiformats library not supporting python 3.6. Python 3.6 is EOL, maybe it should be dropped? |
Signed-off-by: Darko Kulic <darko.kulic@sicpa.com>
|
@WadeBarnes, others — can we drop Python 3.6? What is the follow on impact of dropping that? It seems long overdue. |
|
@swcurran, Yes we can drop Python 3.6. The |
|
I opened up #2247 to make the version bump from 3.6 to 3.9 |
|
To be discussed at ACA-Pug Meeting — May 30, 2023. |
… into feat/Ed25519Signature2020
Signed-off-by: Darko Kulic <darko.kulic@sicpa.com>
Signed-off-by: Darko Kulic <darko.kulic@sicpa.com>
dkulic
changed the title
Signed-off-by: Darko Kulic <darko.kulic@sicpa.com>
|
@dkulic is OOTO so I'll take care of the conflicts on this PR. |
dbluhm
force-pushed
the
feat/Ed25519Signature2020
branch
from
272f352
to
650aeef
Compare
|
This one is ready to go; since I had a (small) hand in it, I'll give others a chance to review. |
|
@TimoGlastra — you had reviewed this previously. Could you take a look, please? |
|
Requesting input from @usingtechnology and/or @andrewwhitehead; would like to see this one keep moving along. |
| @@ -294,6 +299,8 @@ async def resolve_invitation( | |||
| def _extract_key_material_in_base58_format(method: VerificationMethod) -> str: | |||
| if isinstance(method, Ed25519VerificationKey2018): | |||
| return method.material | |||
| elif isinstance(method, Ed25519VerificationKey2020): | |||
| return bytes_to_b58(multibase.decode(method.material)) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this also needs an "unwrap" on the material to remove the 0xed multicodec prefix added when using the publicKeyMultibase
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's actually a little ambiguous in the DID Spec whether publicKeyMultibase also includes the multicodec prefix but in practice (in libraries like didcomm-python), it seems to be expected.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I added support for both (with and without multicodec). Do you think it should be like that or should we support multibase keys only with multicodec?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Given the ambiguity, I think accepting either is probably a good choice for now at least.
Signed-off-by: Darko Kulic <darko.kulic@sicpa.com>
Signed-off-by: Darko Kulic <darko.kulic@sicpa.com>
|
Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!
|
No description provided.