CIP-???? | KERI-backed metadata attestations

[Kammerlo]

This CIP proposes a standardized mechanism to embed KERI (Key Event Receipt Infrastructure) identifiers within Cardano transaction metadata, enabling verifiable identity binding for on-chain actions.
By leveraging existing KERI and ACDC standards from the Trust over IP Foundation, this proposal enables entities including legal entities, organizations, DAOs, and individuals to cryptographically prove their identity through credential chains.

This CIP enables Cardano to support enterprise and regulatory use cases requiring audit trails, authorized signatories, and identities. Initial implementations are being developed by reeve.technology and veridian.id, with reference examples included for vLEI credential chains.

---

(content directory with latest rendered proposal)

[rphair]

Marking Triage for general review at or before the next CIP meeting: https://hackmd.io/@cip-editors/123

Now that the content is stable please @Kammerlo avoid further force-push unless you have a way of also including the commits generated via review through GitHub UI in that push. 🙏

[rphair]

Suggested change

	}
	},

I think the reason why this is failing the GitHub CI validation check for the metadata DB is the missing comma to make the entries symmetrical... let's add this & see if that fixes it.

[Kammerlo]

The error in the build job says: the label needs to be a number. So for now we need to live with the failing build job (as far as I saw it). I would update this once we have a number, such that the metadata label and the CIP matches to make life easier.

[rphair]

@Kammerlo somehow I missed those ? characters 😖 & yes I guess we will ignore the CI warnings until ready to assign a tag number.

[rphair]

Suggested change

	## Reference Example - vLEI
	### Reference Example - vLEI

I can't imagine this going anywhere but the Specification but please feel free to move accordingly if not... in any case it's too detailed (and not standard enough) to be a top-level section.

[rphair]

@Kammerlo if you'd like editors to help develop this when the CIP is initially reviewed at the next meeting please say so... reviewers & editors could help full this out in the meantime. But if you're still working on this section please post here & we'll consider it TODO.

[Kammerlo]

From our point of view we added what was needed, but I'm happy to extend Appendix, if you (or someone else) might this it would be useful.

[rphair]

@Kammerlo the Appendix is fine... it's the Path to Active that is needed 😅 ... the quote above was only to show that we do need something between the Path to Active and Appendix headings: https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/tree/master/CIP-0001#path-to-active

[Kammerlo]

Ah sorry got it.
Yes some advice here would be very well appreciated. Since these proposal is already implemented within Cardano Foundations Reeve as a demo. We did that in close collaboration with the Veridian Team.

But I'll discuss this with my colleagues today. If you could consider it as TODO for now that would be great.

[rphair]

Generally we would put any reference implementation, and any live implementation such as Reeve, in the Implementation Plan.

The Acceptance Criteria (preceding it in the usual order, though generally not in chronological order) would contain other points to consider the CIP Active e.g. what implementations from third parties are, or could be, planned or implemented.

• p.s. if Veridian itself could be considered an implementation then maybe this would qualify for Active status straight away (rather than merging as Proposed) so that's something to consider in your discussions & which we'll review online + at CIP meetings.

In any case we'll consider this a review issue & I'll plan to note here if any suggestions for Path to Active come up from the meeting if this items is still TODO then.

[rphair]

@Kammerlo our consensus from the CIP meeting today is for this to remain Unconfirmed while we collect more reviews. The work of the CF in this field is well appreciated but of course we'd want to see participation from other agencies about how they might use this: to support breadth beyond Veridian and Reeve apps already identified (even if if not pursuing Active status which would likely be premature).

Editors would first need to see a proper Path to Active developed: perhaps as a result of that community discussion... leading to a resolution of #1113 (comment) which is currently the most significant review point.