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