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

Dear All


Many thanks to Drummond, Manu and Tim for their slides and inputs. Please
note:


1) Friday October 27th  15.30pm-4.00pm GST: "Blockchain Naming Systems
Impact on ICANN - Remote Participation.

* This meetings is going to begin in about 30 minutes from now and the link
to the Adobe Connect session is here:

https://participate.icann.org/opencommunity

My slides are available here:

tinyurl.com/icann60-btc

p.


On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 3:36 PM, Pindar Wong <pindar.wong@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>
> 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> 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/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>
>