web4-standard (2).zip

Zip Archive

here's the latest draft with some key additions.  do a fresh review for form, technical merit, accuracy, and completeness.

###### ChatGPT said:

I’ve reviewed the latest draft of your Web4 standard proposal across the core, protocols, errors, tensor guides, and supporting docs. Here’s a structured assessment:

------

# 📑 Form & Structure

- **Clarity:** The document set is well organized: *core-spec* (principles, tensors, security), *protocols* (handshake, LCT, metering), *profiles*, *implementation*, and *community/governance*. The inclusion of `QUICK_REFERENCE.md` and `INTEGRATION_STATUS.md` makes navigation easy.
- **Consistency:** Headings and RFC-style sections are largely consistent. The addition of grammar/notation in *architecture* ensures terms are defined.
- **Readability:** Examples are provided in both JSON and CBOR diagnostic where relevant, improving accessibility.
- **Completeness:** Almost all previous ellipses/truncations are gone; files now have full sections.

------

# ⚙️ Technical Merit

- **Handshake:**
  - Canonicalization/signature rules now explicit: COSE/CBOR (MUST, Ed25519, deterministic CBOR) and JOSE/JSON (SHOULD, ES256 + JCS).
  - Profile binding into the transcript hash is stated → downgrade protection achieved.
  - Replay, freshness windows, and GREASE unknown extensions included.
- **LCT:**
  - Object model includes `binding`, `policy`, `attestations`, `lineage`, and `revocation`.
  - Rotation and revocation rules are present, though witness claim sets could be more concretely bound (see below).
- **Metering:**
  - Messages (CreditGrant, UsageReport, Dispute, Settle) are consistent, with semantics spelled out (token-bucket, replay protection).
  - Witness roles included (`time`, `audit-minimal`, `oracle`).
- **Errors:**
  - Aligns with RFC 9457 Problem Details. Schema included in `implementation/tests`. Error codes match the registry.
- **Tensors (MRH, T3/V3, R6):**
  - These sections connect the philosophical/technical framework. The definitions are sound, though examples for how tensors link into protocol execution could help implementers.

------

# 🎯 Accuracy

- **Cryptography:**
  - Algorithm identifiers (COSE alg = -8, crv=6; JOSE alg=ES256) are correctly stated.
  - HPKE references are accurate (RFC 9180).
  - Transcript binding includes suite negotiation → correct downgrade resistance.
- **Identifiers:**
  - Pairwise W4IDp derivation is HKDF-based, MB32-encoded. Salt uniqueness and rotation requirements are called out.
- **Error handling:**
  - Codes, schema, and examples match, ensuring implementers won’t diverge.

------

# ✅ Completeness

- **Profiles:** Edge, P2P, Cloud, and Blockchain-Bridge now exist with requirements. Each points to transports and witness expectations.
- **Implementation:** Reference client, stubs, demo, test vectors, and negative tests included. This makes the standard testable.
- **Governance/community:** Maintenance and governance files provide the continuity story, which helps external contributors.
- **Quick Reference:** Provides a practical summary, reducing onboarding friction.

------

# 🚩 Remaining Gaps / Recommendations

1. **Witness Spec Unification (P0.5)**
    Witnessing appears in LCT and Metering, but there’s no single canonical definition of required protected headers and signature structures for witnesses. Suggest a `protocols/web4-witnessing.md` or section in *security-framework.md* that defines:
   - Minimal COSE/JWS envelope for witness claims
   - Required protected fields (`role`, `policy`, `ts`)
   - Replay/expiry semantics
2. **Transport & Discovery Matrix (P1)**
    Profiles specify QUIC, WebRTC, etc. A single matrix table in `core-protocol.md` summarizing transport and discovery methods (MUST/SHOULD/MAY) would prevent drift.
3. **Tensor Integration Examples (P1)**
    MRH, T3/V3, and R6 tensors are defined conceptually but not clearly tied to specific protocol flows. Add one or two worked examples: e.g., *how a V3 tensor constrains metering policy evaluation*.
4. **Security Considerations Cross-Reference (P1)**
    Each protocol has its own section, but a consolidated `core-spec/security-framework.md` summary table mapping threats (replay, downgrade, KCI, Sybil) to mitigations would help reviewers.
5. **Interop Vectors Coverage (P1)**
    Current vectors cover HandshakeAuth and UsageReport (good). Consider adding:
   - LCT issuance + rotation
   - Witness attestation message
   - Negative error response (`W4_ERR_RATE_LIMIT`)
6. **Submission Prep (P2)**
    `submission/web4-rfc.md` and draft XML need IANA Considerations filled with explicit registries (suites, ext IDs, error codes). This will be required for an IETF track.

------

# 🏁 Verdict

This draft is now **substantively complete and technically coherent**. With a unified Witness spec and a few more interop vectors, it would be alpha-ready for independent implementations and beta-ready for submission (IETF/ISO).

------

Would you like me to **draft the missing “Witness Specification” section** (with normative COSE/JWS claim format and examples) so you can drop it straight into `security-framework.md`? 

##### You said:

yes, please - make it downloadable

###### ChatGPT said:

Here’s the new **Web4 Witnessing Specification** as a drop-in Markdown file:

- Download `web4-witness-spec.zip`

It defines:

- Witness roles (`time`, `audit-minimal`, `oracle`)
- Canonical COSE and JOSE envelope formats with required fields
- Verification rules and error handling
- Interop vector requirements
- Draft IANA registry for roles

You can drop `web4-witnessing.md` straight into `core-spec/` or `protocols/` and link it from *security-framework.md*.

Want me to also generate **unsigned interop vectors** for the three witness roles, like we did for HandshakeAuth and UsageReport? 

##### You said:

yes please

###### ChatGPT said:

Done — unsigned **witness interop vectors** for the three roles are ready:

- Download `web4-witness-vectors.zip`

What’s inside (`witness-vectors/`):

- `witness_time_jose.json` and `witness_time_cose.json`
- `witness_audit-minimal_jose.json` and `witness_audit-minimal_cose.json`
- `witness_oracle_jose.json` and `witness_oracle_cose.json`
- `README.md` with instructions and the shared field values

Each JSON includes:

- **JOSE/JSON**: protected header, payload, `signing_input`, and its SHA-256 (sign with ES256).
- **COSE/CBOR**: protected headers (diagnostic), protected bstr (base64url), canonical payload CBOR hex, `Sig_structure` hex and SHA-256 (sign with Ed25519).

If you want, I can also wire a **validator script** that checks an implementation’s emitted tokens against these vectors (JCS canonicalization, COSE Sig_structure bytes, etc.). 

##### You said:

yes please

###### ChatGPT said:

Thought for 10s

Validator delivered ✅

- Download `web4-vector-validator.zip`

What it does:

- **JOSE/JSON**: recomputes JCS-canonical header & payload, rebuilds `signing_input`, and compares its SHA-256 to the vector.
- **COSE/CBOR**: rebuilds the `Sig_structure` bytes from the protected header bstr and payload CBOR, and compares its SHA-256 to the vector.

Usage:

```
# Validate a folder of vectors (e.g., the ZIPs I gave you)
python validate_vectors.py --vectors-dir ./test-vectors
python validate_vectors.py --vectors-dir ./witness-vectors

# Check a JOSE compact token against a specific vector
python validate_vectors.py \
  --check-jose-token <header.payload.signature> \
  --against test-vectors/handshakeauth_jose.json

# Check COSE parts (protected b64 + payload CBOR hex) against a vector
python validate_vectors.py \
  --check-cose \
  --protected-b64 <base64url_protected_bstr> \
  --payload-hex <hex_payload_cbor> \
  --against test-vectors/handshakeauth_cose.json
```

Notes:

- This focuses on **canonicalization and byte equality**. Use your crypto stack to verify signatures (Ed25519 for COSE, ES256 for JOSE).
- Exit code `0` = all good; `1` = at least one mismatch. 