add ConditionalProof2022 as verification method type

[jrayback]

Add ConditionalProof2022 as new Verification Method Type. I don't know the correct procedure for registering the security suite JSON-LD context definition. Please advise and I will update the PR as appropriate.

[jrayback]

FYI: This is part of the effort of finalizing the did:webs spec. ConditionalProof2022 is the way we've implemented multi-sig. We'd like to formally register it to be fully compliant with the requirements for extensions in DID CORE.

[kentbull]

@jrayback Markus commented in ToIP Slack that the PR looks good.

[jrayback]

The JSON-LD context is now available for ConditionalProof2022. I believe this makes the PR complete and ready to merge.

[jrayback]

@ottomorac , @swcurran , could one of you please review this PR and approve so we can get it merged? Thanks! @kentbull , fyi...

[swcurran]

It looks like an entry to me (woot!), and I see that it is identical to the preceding verifiableCondition2021 -- other than the name. I gather there is not a place to put a technical meaning as to what the purpose of the verificationMethod type is? I do notice that the two examples are different -- one a DIDDoc, one a VerificationMethod. Should those be consistent?

Unfortunately, I've not been trained on what makes a valid entry into this registry. A unique name? A valid example? As such I don't think I'm qualified to approve this.

[jrayback]

It looks like an entry to me (woot!), and I see that it is identical to the preceding verifiableCondition2021 -- other than the name. I gather there is not a place to put a technical meaning as to what the purpose of the verificationMethod type is? I do notice that the two examples are different -- one a DIDDoc, one a VerificationMethod. Should those be consistent?

Unfortunately, I've not been trained on what makes a valid entry into this registry. A unique name? A valid example? As such I don't think I'm qualified to approve this.

Thanks @swcurran . It's not identical, it has different content, links to different sources, etc. @ottomorac , can you help with this?

[ottomorac]

@jrayback I am really not sure how to handle this. I will ask about in the next DID WG meeting if time permits.

[jrayback]

@jrayback I am really not sure how to handle this. I will ask about in the next DID WG meeting if time permits.

@ottomorac , thanks! I'd like to follow whatever process there is. Just let me know what to do!

[ottomorac]

Hello @jrayback

This should be registered in the VC Extensions Repo: https://www.w3.org/TR/vc-extensions/#securing-mechanisms
in addition to here. Apologies we are figuring out the process for this.

[kentbull]

@ottomorac we appreciate you for chasing this down for us. I will add that to the did:webs TODO list.

[swcurran]

Sorry I missed the link to the specification in the content here. That was what was confusing me. I was shown the error of my ways at the DID Working Group and so am now happy to approve this. Sorry for the confusion.

[kentbull]

Thank you, @swcurran !

[ottomorac]

Hello @kentbull I will do the same once you create the mirror registration in the VC Extensions Repo as explained. Best, Otto

[jrayback]

Hello @jrayback

This should be registered in the VC Extensions Repo: https://www.w3.org/TR/vc-extensions/#securing-mechanisms in addition to here. Apologies we are figuring out the process for this.

@ottomorac , Can you explain further? ConditionalProof2022 is, specifically, a DID verification method. It isn't a generalized security suite. I'm not sure what category it would belong to under VC extensions.