Feat: use new keyshare protocol in irmaclient #327
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
ivard
commented
Aug 9, 2023
ivard
commented
Aug 9, 2023
ivard
commented
Aug 10, 2023
This was referenced Aug 30, 2023
…ndomizers Construct zero-knowledge proof randomizers using new gabi function
…tructs in irmaclient
w-ensink
previously approved these changes
Apr 1, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
In this PR I implemented the clientside parts of the new keyshare protocol. The server endpoints were already introduced in #267, #273, #274 and #278. I used the gabi test code as a reference implementation.
This PR can only be merged if the new keyshare protocol has been merged and deployed (#240). There is no backwards compatibility implemented for the legacy keyshare protocol.
This PR does not include introducing a new JWT type for verifiers. This will be done later in a separate PR because it needs some thinking first. There is no API design yet about how we post the JWT to verifiers and we must decide whether we want to keep the difference between the message format in signing sessions and disclosure sessions. The JWT handling for verifiers is not mandatory for using the new keyshare protocol, so this issue is not blocking.