W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > February 2018

DID 'service' ABNF

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 12:18:02 -0500
To: W3C Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0fca4a28-37c5-a373-2c6a-2d9f3d51364b@digitalbazaar.com>
Hey Drummond,

After much friendly yelling back and forth at DB HQ :), I think Dave
Longley has convinced me that I'm overly concerned about the service ABNF.

I still feel uneasy about it, but I think the onus is on those of us
that are concerned to provide concrete examples of where everything
falls apart and for those that are not concerned to demonstrate why the
examples are not a problem.

Let's get this into an issue and take the conversation from there, but
I'm less against the concept than I was yesterday, and here's why:

The argument that was most compelling to me was that the service
description goes in the "authority" section of the DID URL:


Where AUTHORITY contains the service description. While ChristopherA is
correct that things after METHOD are typically the purview of the
AUTHORITY section, we're making an exception in this case because things
starting at the path are typically service specific. So, we're basically
saying, if you're going to do services in your DID Method, you MUST do
them in this way... and we're putting that at the DID Spec layer.

Again, I find this a bit sloppy, but don't have a better suggestion. We
do what I was suggesting, which was to use ? or & because those
typically go in a path AFTER the AUTHORITY section.

In any case, we need more examples of services and non-services
expressed through a DID before we can really reach a conclusion on this.

-- manu

Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: The State of W3C Web Payments in 2017
Received on Friday, 16 February 2018 17:18:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:18:22 UTC