W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > December 2018

RE: Review of the current draft DID specification

From: Michael Herman (Parallelspace) <mwherman@parallelspace.net>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 15:33:44 +0000
To: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
CC: "public-credentials@w3.org" <public-credentials@w3.org>
Message-ID: <MWHPR13MB12775EE4F71360E044EFCCD6C3B80@MWHPR13MB1277.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
Thank you for the reply Melvin,

I hope you or someone can begin to look at the first few of these issues (I’ve actually lost count of the total number of issues and I’m just starting into section 3 of the document). Because I’m reading through the draft spec section-by-section and paragraph-by-paragraph in sequential order, it’s hard to do any a-priory grouping.  Perhaps I or someone else can tag them afterwards.

Closely related, I would appreciate feedback on the Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs) – Architecture Reference Model (ARM) diagrams I’m building (https://hyperonomy.com/2018/12/21/decentralized-identifiers-dids-architecture-reference-model-arm/) that I reference in many of the github did-spec issues.  Going forward I will only reference this central (😉) version of the diagrams. These diagrams are part of a larger effort to create an architecture reference model for the entire Hyperledger Indy software platform and Sovrin governance model.  The achieve this goal, a deep and precise of the draft Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs) specification is required.  I appreciate all of your help and input.

I really appreciate your reply (“it can be lonely out here” :-)),

Best regards,
Michael Herman (Toronto/Calgary/Seattle)
Mobile: +1 416 524-7702

From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Sent: December 21, 2018 2:08 AM
To: Michael Herman (Parallelspace) <mwherman@parallelspace.net>
Cc: public-credentials@w3.org
Subject: Re: Review of the current draft DID specification

On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 at 07:57, Michael Herman (Parallelspace) <mwherman@parallelspace.net<mailto:mwherman@parallelspace.net>> wrote:
I've recently started a detailed review of the current draft DID specification document and to be direct, I have found even the first few sections to be quite imprecise and confuding.
I've started creating a new GitHub issue every time I've encountered a problem. 11 issues so far and I'm barely into section 2.
I'm reviewing the draft spec from the perspectives of an Enterprise Architect and experienced blockchain developer. Most of the issues relate to a lack of precision in the use of key concepts and terminology ...as well as unnecessary IMHO overloading of these key concepts/terms ...things that should be prohibitive in a spec document..
That's a bit of a brutal introduction... But those who have met me (in Basel for example) understand my proper passion around these topics.
I also understand there is a rush to advance this document from a Community draft specification to something with a more formal status. I honestly don't think the document is ready ...but I don't know what the "bar" is.
What's the best way to proceed? I'm not sure... ...keep creating new issues? ...write a lengthy position paper? ... create a new PR?
Your thoughts?

Definitely worth recording the issues you find.

Divide them into sections perhaps, minor typos, bug type errors, conceptual issues

Definitely worth pointing the ones you rank higher to the list.

Also if you have pointers to longer text Im sure some here will be interested.

I realize I didnt answer all your questions, but others can probably advise better there

Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>

Received on Friday, 21 December 2018 15:34:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 December 2018 15:34:13 UTC