Comments - (was: Re: DID PR review deadline: October 24)

I've changed the subjectLine.

opinions outlined below.

The WikiPedia links should be for the version referenced by the doc.

ie:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Federated_identity&oldid=800443727
vs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federated_identity

key-value pair
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribute%25E2%2580%2593value_pair> = bad
link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribute%25E2%2580%2593value_pair

re:

   1. URN is the term for a specific type of URI intended to persistently
   identify a resource, i.e., an identifier that will never change no matter
   how often the resource moves, changes names, changes owners, etc. URNs are
   intended to last forever.

I looked up both https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urn and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Resource_Name noting the differences
herein.  i later found https://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2141.txt  which should
likely be hyperlinked to title.

there's otherwise a bunch of broken links.  please check them all.

this spec. looks like...

well.  I hope the work from the group is documented in a modular way.
Something about being able to use parts of the work, without having to eat
it all...

Tim.


On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 at 20:59 Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Found a relevent IETF RFC[4] re: trust anchors[2]
>
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 at 18:09 Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> very quickly.  was looking at the overview[1] and saw the concept "root
>> of trust <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_anchor>" which hyperlinks
>> to Trust Anchor[2].  I suggest either defining a new wikipedia page for the
>> term[3] rather than simply a redirect, or change the term used in the spec
>> doc.
>>
>> more l8r.
>>
>> Tim.H.
>>
>> [1] https://w3c-ccg.github.io/did-spec/#overview
>> [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_anchor
>> [3]
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Root_of_Trust&action=history
>>
> [4] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5914
>
>>
>> On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 at 17:49 Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 at 08:20 Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/18/2017 01:50 PM, Kim Hamilton Duffy wrote:
>>>> > Manu -- what are your thoughts?
>>>>
>>>> Steven, at this point the only feedback we're looking for is only
>>>> technical in nature and even then, based on whether the text reflects
>>>> consensus at Rebooting the Web of Trust 5, which you weren't at.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Is this a RWOT spec?
>>>
>>> If so, it should be marked as such.   This CG can then make one inspired
>>> by it, if/as required.
>>>
>>> Therein, the spec should be moved to the RWOT repo?
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> In other words, the spec isn't ready for your kind of valuable feedback
>>>> yet... it would largely be a waste of your time to correct the large
>>>> swaths of the spec text that may be confusing for non-implementers that
>>>> are buried in the details right now.
>>>>
>>>> I expect that we may need your review help in a few months time from
>>>> now. As always, thanks for offering and we will certainly take you up on
>>>> it once it becomes a good use of your time.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'll review and have a look; and am not sure of the specifics, whilst
>>> noting important principles herein.
>>>
>>> IMHO: it's important to be inclusive and the W3 IPR framework is not
>>> unintentionally misaligned in some way that is against the spirit of this
>>> structure.
>>>
>>> I  guess.  try not to oversimplify imho.  might end-up with unintended
>>> consequences. (technically speaking).
>>>
>>>
>>>> -- manu
>>>>
>>>> best wishes,
>>>
>>> tim.
>>>
>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 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/
>>>>
>>>>