Re: DID Method requirements (revocability)

Thanks for the clarification, Drummond.

With an eye toward interoperability, I have one clarifying question.

If I query a DID what response indicates that it is revoked? (I could not
find the answer in https://w3c-ccg.github.io/did-spec/)

 1) The call returns an empty JSON doc like: {}
 2) The call returns an empty doc such as: ""
 3) Or something else?

Thanks!

  -chrisb


On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 8:40 PM, =Drummond Reed <drummond.reed@evernym.com>
wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 5:18 PM, Chris Boscolo <chris@boscolo.net> wrote:
>
>> During the W3C call this morning, one issue that was highlighted was
>> whether or not a DID needs to support the ability to be revoked in order to
>> claim compliance with the standard.
>>
>
> Good question, Chris. I can't check right at the moment but I believe we
> said it was optional for a DID method to support revocation. So a DID
> method specification simply needs to say:
>
>    1. Is revocation supported?
>    2. If so, how?
>
> We recommended that any DID method capable of supporting revocation do it
> by nulling out the DID document.
>
>
>>
>> This prompted a question for me.  Does anyone know how many of the DID
>> methods supported via https://uniresolver.io/ do the revocation check as
>> part of the read/verify step?
>>
>
> I don't offhand but maybe Markus does?
>
>
>>
>> Also, in re-reading the DID spec, I notice it does not specifically
>> mention doing this check during the Read/Verify step.  Would it be worth
>> adding some language clarifying that implementors should do this?
>>
>
> If the recommended method of revocation is to null out the DID document,
> then no additional work is necessary: if the return is a null DID document,
> the DID is revoked.
>
> So the revocation check is only necessary if the DID method has a
> different way of doing revocation. In which case I would agree that it
> should be recommended to check it on resolution.
>
> =Drummond
>