CPS-???? | Linking Off-Chain Identities

[Kammerlo]

We are currently working on different solutions, which involve offChain identifiers to prove that a legal entity is behind a transaction.
For example an organisation with a valid vLEI wants to publish transactions on chain. Finding a way how to tie these identifiers to the transaction will add another layer of trust and accountability.
There are a few possibilities for these identifiers. One latest example of a CF solution is the implementation of KERI within the Veridian Wallet.

A rendered solution is here: https://github.com/Kammerlo/CIPs/tree/master/CPS-%3F%3F%3F%3F

[rphair]

@Kammerlo this was triaged at today's CIP meeting, with the introduction mainly getting caught up in formatting inconsistencies with other CPSs and the document specs in CIP-0001 and CIP-9999. Most of that response is already posted at this point.

Our decision was to leave this Unconfirmed and leave detailed review to the coming biweekly period. When you or editors think it's ready, it should come out in the discussion & we'll put it up for Review at the following meeting: with the goal of upgrading this to Confirmed after more review, response & update and then giving it a CIP number.

One thing that came up in the meeting review was an observation that any future versions of the specification were required to maintain consistency with all other previous versions. I think this could make for a good point of discussion going forward: since this would be an unusually strict requirement of versioning and CIPs in general.

[rphair]

@Kammerlo I think this could have the same issue this one (failing CIP-0010 validation because of the assymmetrical final entry missing a trailing comma)

[rphair]

actually @Kammerlo this modification should be removed since it's already being added in this PR:

• CIP-0170? | KERI-backed metadata attestations #1113

... in which, as you pointed out, the validation failure has been from the ? string pending the usual number.

[Ryun1]

hey @Kammerlo

I believe you have added the CIP is added as mistake to this PR

[rphair]

yes @Kammerlo it's true... your CIP (#1113) rode into this PR with some commits that came from this merge: #1059 (commits) ... those should be removed from the branch somehow. I think you will have to either

• force-push (ugh) a branch with only the commits for your CPS work + metadata tag update (+ other commits submitted here on GitHub from other authors! 🙏);
• close this PR and resubmit this work in a new one, to avoid maintaining an inappropriate commit history here.

Editors decided at the CIP meeting today to leave this Waiting for Author until this can be considered fit for review again & likely this has just been facing end-of-the-year bandwidth issues. We are still looking forward to seeing the progression of these technical submissions & correspondence with work you are doing in the "real world".

[Kammerlo]

Ah Sorry, damn that's right. I will close this PR. As we are going forward with the CIP directly. Sorry for the confusion and struggle.