-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Minor issues with test vectors and examples #12
Comments
As for issue 3, the version of the DI spec you linked to is an old community report, prior to the work's acceptance into the VCWG. The current spec is here: https://w3c.github.io/vc-data-integrity/ (or a date-stamped version from yesterday if you prefer). A direct link to the |
@Exulansis Since the MRZ is the canonicalized form will just be those lines with newline characters at the end concatenated. For point 2, that is a good catch - indeed to be a fully compliant AAMVA PDF417 there would need to be a space. It won't impact the usefulness of the test vectors or the canonicalization, but we will change that in an iteration. |
@dlongley my bad, I must have had a stale link bookmarked, should have double-checked. Thanks! @wes-smith sorry for the confusion, I abbreviated the MRZ to only include the areas I changed (in bold). What I meant to say is that I had to update the checksum digits (3 entries on the second line). My final MRZ looks like this (without the [ ] characters of course):
So I changed |
While implementing the specification I came across a few minor issues with the provided test vectors. I just want to check if the issues are related to the test vectors or if I should revisit my implementation.
Issue 1 - The checksums in the example MRZ might be incorrect. It may very well be that I am missing something though.
It seems like the correct values would be:
Issue 2 - The data encoded in the PDF417 barcode might be missing a space in the first line. The encoded line is
ANSI00000009...
. According to this document, section D.12.3 Header:Issue 3 - The DI proofs associated with the example credentials do not include the
created
field, which is marked as required by the Data Integrity specification. I assume this is by design, given the VC size restrictions, but want to double check. Parsing proofs without this field requires a bit of extra logic given a generic, spec compliant, VC implementation.Thank you!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: