Re: DID Spec "Hardening" Proposal (was: Re: DID PR review deadline: October 24)

Dear All,

Great to see that there’s more traction and awareness!

Technical transitions and architectural pivots can be super tough but I’m of the view to try create engagement if they are to be managed elegantly.

So just a heads-up, and though some may consider this legacy,  but FWIW I’ll be talking a bit about  the DID Spec  at ICANN60 during the following panel:

https://schedule.icann.org/event/CbFe/emerging-identifiers-technology <https://schedule.icann.org/event/CbFe/emerging-identifiers-technology>

p.



> On 24 Oct 2017, at 2:59 PM, =Drummond Reed <drummond.reed@evernym.com> wrote:
> 
> Folks,
> 
> The good news was that there was a TON of interest in the DID spec at Internet Identity Workshop <http://www.internetidentityworkshop.com/> #25. I gave three complete presentations on it and we had several other related sessions.
> 
> The bad news (well, not really) is that there was a ton of feedback. People are really starting to care deeply about making sure the DID spec, as the foundation for a global DPKI (decentralized public key infrastructure <https://github.com/WebOfTrustInfo/rebooting-the-web-of-trust/blob/master/final-documents/dpki.pdf>), is solid as a rock.
> 
> On the Friday after IIW I had a long breakfast with Christian Lundkvist of uPort where we discussed this and developed a proposal for how to handle key descriptions and service descriptions in a data graph so simple it can be serialized unambiguously in any modern format. Yesterday I wrote up this proposal in this Google doc <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1amDNmBqu8uXKeEqdoZ2RMaaxiUlqUKyKoyi8YgGWG6M/edit?usp=sharing> (publicly viewable by anyone with the link).
> 
> This proposal also includes the recommendation that interoperability at the DID layer is so crucial that every key description and every service description should have a corresponding spec (even if fairly lightweight).
> 
> I have not had a chance to share this with Manu or anyone else yet besides Christian (to make sure I got it right) and the Evernym DID team (as a sanity check and to get input on how it helps with DKMS support).
> 
> We can of course translate this into an actual PR against the current draft spec—and we will do that when ready—but it seemed easiest to share it in this format first for discussion.
> 
> Talk to you tomorrow,
> 
> =Drummond
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 2:59 AM, Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <https://w3c-ccg.github.io/did-spec/#overview>
> [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_anchor <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_anchor>
> [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Root_of_Trust&action=history <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Root_of_Trust&action=history>
> [4] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5914 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5914>
> 
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 at 17:49 Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com <mailto:timothy.holborn@gmail.com>> wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 at 08:20 Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com <mailto: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/ <http://manu.sporny.org/2016/rebalancing/>
> 
>