Re: DID Spec Closure Process: Cryptographic Key Material Proposals for the DID Specification

On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 9:54 AM, Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>
wrote:

> On 2017-12-19 1:20 AM, =Drummond Reed wrote:
>
>> Per an action item from the last DID Spec Closure call (Thursdays at
>> 10AM Pacific Time), I have created a new Google doc <
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/13fp7V3v1nBuhxTI55Al8KLG
>> 2kyxFthBz-Ush-ZL58KA/edit?usp=sharing> to help us present and discuss
>> proposals regarding one specific set of issues. From the introduction:
>>
>>     Over the past month the CCG has been holding DID Spec Closure
>>     meetings. One of the primary issues being discussed is how DID
>>     documents can best enable identity owners to publish the public
>>     keys or other cryptographic material they need to make available
>>     in a DID document in order to bootstrap trusted interactions. Note
>>     that in many cases this cryptographic key material will be used in
>>     conjunction with service endpoints that are also published in the
>>     DID document.
>>
>>     The purpose of this document is to enable CCG member(s) who have a
>>     particular point of view on how best to represent cryptographic
>>     key material in a DID document to present their proposal in one
>>     place so that the full group can evaluate all the proposals and
>>     ideally find an intersection that everyone can live with.
>>
>
> Drummond & all,
>
> TL;DR:  Include Use-cases in comparison?
>

Steven, great point. I added it to the template, and in fact added one
example use case for the first proposal listed ("Simple Flat Array of Key
Description Objects").

I'm hoping others who have proposals can add them tomorrow in advance of
our final DID Spec Closure call of the year on Thursday morning (10AM PT;
reminder details will be sent to the list).

=Drummond


>
> Longer:
>
> I agree that this Google doc seems like a good way to make a comparison
> between DID structure choices that may have a long-term effect. I look
> forward to seeing the others filled in.
>
> However, in that document shouldn't there be some reference to use-cases,
> since, AFAIK, they are potentially impacted by the choice?
>
> Specifically, how would any proposal make it easier or harder for even a
> single major use-case (like the refugee migration documents) to be
> achieved? Or even better, perhaps three or four representative use-cases?
>
> Or at very least, put a direct mention in the "Rationale" section that
> variable ability to achieve use-cases should be considered and noted?
>
> IMO it's the one thing everything on the list shares; when this DID system
> is up and running, what use-cases will it be able to perform...or not
> perform?
>
> Steven
>
>
>
>