Re: DID 'service' ABNF

Ok, one of my action items this week is to update the ABNF in the DID spec
to reflect this—unless you've already done that (in which case let me know).

I did update the ABNF in the DID Spec Completion Proposals doc
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aR8V_JUJdq1Sbi47wCV5aa-dEY0e-V2RqwPNP5ci1bg/edit?usp=sharing>
just so we have a completely copy to share until we have it all in the main
spec.

Thanks,

=Drummond

On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 10:17 PM, Markus Sabadello <markus@danubetech.com>
wrote:

> Thats good, +1
> On 02/19/2018 07:00 AM, =Drummond Reed wrote:
>
> Markus, I think your are correct, and that the first option you suggest is
> the best one. I'd tweak the rule name slightly to this:
>
>   did-reference      = did *[ ";" did-service ]* [ "/" did-path ] [ "?"
> did-query ] [ "#" did-fragment ]
>   did                = "did:" method ":" specific-idstring
>
> But your core point stands, which is that the did service name is not part
> of the DID itself.
>
> Thanks,
>
> =Drummond
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 5:04 AM, Markus Sabadello <markus@danubetech.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I implemented a parser for DID syntax based on the ABNF:
>>
>> https://github.com/decentralized-identity/universal-resolver/tree/master/
>> implementations/java/uni-resolver-core/src/main/java/uniresolver/did
>>
>> And one piece of feedback I have is that perhaps we want to change this:
>>
>>   did-reference      = did [ "/" did-path ] [ "?" did-query ] [ "#"
>> did-fragment ]
>>   did                = "did:" method ":" specific-idstring *[ ";"
>> service ]*
>>
>> To:
>>
>>   did-reference      = did *[ ";" service ]* [ "/" did-path ] [ "?"
>> did-query ] [ "#" did-fragment ]
>>   did                = "did:" method ":" specific-idstring
>>
>> This wouldn't change the allowed syntax, only re-organize the rules,
>> since the "service" name isn't really part of the "DID" itself, or?
>>
>> Or we could also introduce an intermediary rule:
>>
>>   did-reference      = *did-service* [ "/" did-path ] [ "?" did-query ]
>> [ "#" did-fragment ]
>>   *did-service*        = did *[ ";" service ]*
>>   did                = "did:" method ":" specific-idstring
>>
>> Or:
>>
>>   did-reference      = *( did / did-service ) *[ "/" did-path ] [ "?"
>> did-query ] [ "#" did-fragment ]
>>   *did-service*        = did *";" service*
>>   did                = "did:" method ":" specific-idstring
>>
>> Markus
>> On 02/18/2018 12:51 AM, =Drummond Reed wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:18 AM, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, let's do this.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 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:
>>>
>>> did:METHOD:AUTHORITY?query2=param2&query2=param2#fragment
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> Exactly.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Again, I find this a bit sloppy,
>>
>>
>> Ironically, having worked on URI-based specs (RFC 3986) for 15 years now,
>> I find it very elegant. But explaining why is probably more easily
>> discussed in person at RWOT.
>>
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> Right.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> Happy to help prepare some to go over on the list or on RWOT.
>>
>> =Drummond
>>
>>
>>>
>>> -- manu
>>>
>>> --
>>> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
>>> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
>>> blog: The State of W3C Web Payments in 2017
>>> http://manu.sporny.org/2017/w3c-web-payments/
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>