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

RE: [RESENDING] Review of the current draft DID specification

From: Michael Herman (Parallelspace) <mwherman@parallelspace.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2018 13:53:20 +0000
To: "daniel.hardman@evernym.com" <daniel.hardman@evernym.com>
CC: "public-credentials@w3.org" <public-credentials@w3.org>
Message-ID: <MWHPR13MB1277B214555A07E416D1AA4CC3B50@MWHPR13MB1277.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
Thank you Daniel,

I’m going to continue to review the draft spec paragraph-by-paragraph and log each issue.  There are some fundamental conceptual problems that are making the draft spec very difficult to understand, let alone implement.  Once, I get to the end of the document, I can begin to summarize the core issues.  I’ve lost count but I think there are ~25 new issues so far.

I would be helpful if someone could begin commenting on the first few/5 issues starting with the oldest (https://github.com/w3c-ccg/did-spec/issues/115).

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

From: Daniel Hardman <daniel.hardman@evernym.com>
Sent: December 24, 2018 12:45 PM
To: Michael Herman (Parallelspace) <mwherman@parallelspace.net>
Cc: public-credentials@w3.org
Subject: Re: [RESENDING] Review of the current draft DID specification

What's the best way to proceed? I'm not sure... ...keep creating new issues? ...write a lengthy position paper? ... create a new PR?
IMO, it depends on the depth of the issues. If we're talking about verbiage problems, issues make sense. If we're talking about fundamental conceptual problems that run through the whole spec, then maybe a paper linked to a tracking issue might be better.
Received on Wednesday, 26 December 2018 13:53:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 26 December 2018 13:53:47 UTC