Dave Longley

> DID software deals with crypto all of the time, so asking to do BigInteger isn't a big deal. BigDouble would raise eyebrows. While that's true, I would expect there...

For LD integrity proofs, the `proof` field is removed from the document prior to canonicalization and its contents are canonicalized separately. For suites other than BBS+, the canonized proof and...

@brianorwhatever, > doesn't look like that's the case here Simply pasting a signed document into the JSON-LD playground's canonize tool will canonize the entire document vs. separating the proof value...

One more note: > me too... but since we have urdna to work with for now what's happening here? You'd run into the same issue of needing to separate document...

@OR13, Those `@graph` semantics wouldn't change even if you didn't separate out the proof before canonizing. Separating the proof before canonizing just allows independent signatures to occur. If you skipped...

It's fine if you want to canonize everything together -- just know that the trade off is that you can't have multiple *independent* signers and / or proofs.

@agropper, > Optional encryption means we have to pay attention to the authorization designs. That results in a more resilient system overall. I disagree -- we have to pay attention...

@agropper, > Let's say Alice's prescription is one of a thousand leaves of a hundred branches (prescriptions, labs, demographics, encounters, ...) in her health record and that's the scope of...

@bumblefudge, System A (can only see the ciphertext), now "Role 1", lives at layers A, B, and/or C -- perhaps conceivably D depending on the definition of "replication". System B...

An EDV server is a server that provides N EDVs -- knows nothing about what is stored in them, but enforces some authorization policy (potentially based on technologies such as...