Re: Removing owner from key info in DID Documents

Keep it inclusive IMHO..

On Tue., 17 Oct. 2017, 6:53 am Manu Sporny, <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
wrote:

> On 10/16/2017 10:58 AM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
> > Why would that want to be removed?
>
> There were a few folks from the Bitcoin BTCR DID camp that asserted that
> you can assume who the key owner is if the key is listed in the DID
> Document, which I believe is true (without putting much thought into it).
>
> The downside, of course, is that not listing the key owner is
> incompatible with all the Linked Data Signature libraries. There are
> systems, such as HTTP URL-based ones, where you MUST provide the owner
> (to create the bi-directional link between the site that the key is
> published on and the site that hosts the triples for the owner of the
> key). A compromise would be to inject the owner before sending the key
> into the LDS libs, or to just be okay with a common format across all
> DID Documents.
>
> I suggested that the BTCR folks don't break from this pattern as it'll
> make BTCR-specific implementations more difficult with the only upside
> being the saving of a few tens of bytes of data.
>
> -- manu
>
> --
> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> blog: Rebalancing How the Web is Built
> http://manu.sporny.org/2016/rebalancing/
>
>

Received on Monday, 16 October 2017 20:10:20 UTC