Two small things from the PATH-OS reference impl (cX3po/pathos-dacs-ref, already in the INDEX) — both low-pressure, no action needed unless useful.
1. Conformance corpus available. conformance/security-vectors/ now carries a §12.4 threat-to-test coverage matrix + runnable vectors for §8.5.2 (agreement-listing) and §7.3.2 (verifiable-presentation holder-binding / anti-replay), alongside a §7.5.1 verifier fix. Non-normative, dependency-light, runnable against any implementation. Offered as shared test material; the matrix's GAP rows are a suggested roadmap, not a claim.
2. One genuinely-optional roadmap question. Is CCI-keyed membership (DACS-3 §8.3 — binding L2PS subnet membership to the on-chain CCI) relevant to current Demos/mainnet validation flows? We prototyped a minimal-disclosure membership engine and are deliberately holding it out of our reference main until someone confirms the model matters. If it's relevant we can adapt it to your expected interface; if not or unclear, we'll keep it experimental. No reply needed if it's not on your radar.
Either way — thanks for the steward work. @randomblocker
Two small things from the PATH-OS reference impl (
cX3po/pathos-dacs-ref, already in the INDEX) — both low-pressure, no action needed unless useful.1. Conformance corpus available.
conformance/security-vectors/now carries a §12.4 threat-to-test coverage matrix + runnable vectors for §8.5.2 (agreement-listing) and §7.3.2 (verifiable-presentation holder-binding / anti-replay), alongside a §7.5.1 verifier fix. Non-normative, dependency-light, runnable against any implementation. Offered as shared test material; the matrix's GAP rows are a suggested roadmap, not a claim.2. One genuinely-optional roadmap question. Is CCI-keyed membership (DACS-3 §8.3 — binding L2PS subnet membership to the on-chain CCI) relevant to current Demos/mainnet validation flows? We prototyped a minimal-disclosure membership engine and are deliberately holding it out of our reference
mainuntil someone confirms the model matters. If it's relevant we can adapt it to your expected interface; if not or unclear, we'll keep it experimental. No reply needed if it's not on your radar.Either way — thanks for the steward work. @randomblocker