- From: Markus Sabadello <markus@danubetech.com>
- Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2019 13:43:07 +0200
- To: =Drummond Reed <drummond.reed@evernym.com>, W3C Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>
- Cc: jonnycrunch <jonnycrunch@me.com>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, "Michael Herman (Parallelspace)" <mwherman@parallelspace.net>
- Message-ID: <4e46b937-d648-6782-6a27-3723090a2f4d@danubetech.com>
I think this is my current favorite option for a "DID ABNF" (uh, excuse
me, a "DID grammar").
Looking forward to others' opinions.
Just wanted to give proper credit, the matrix parameter proposal is not
"thanks to Markus' web research", but it has already been discussed
quite a bit on a Github issue. This proposal is essentially Option 1a in
this comment
<https://github.com/w3c-ccg/did-spec/issues/90#issuecomment-439636972>
by Dmitri.
Markus
On 4/4/19 11:43 AM, =Drummond Reed wrote:
> My apologies for joining this thread late. I flew up from Seattle to
> visit John Jordan and Stephen Curran and their team at BC Gov
> yesterday. One benefit of the visit was that it gave us a long
> whiteboard session to go over both Manu's and Michael Herman's
> proposals. We were also able to get Markus on a Zoom to get his thoughts.
>
> The outcome was the proposal below, called the "matrix parameters
> syntax" proposal thanks to Markus' web research on URI parameter
> syntax (it turns out no less than Tim Berners-Lee proposed matrix
> parameter syntax in 1996
> <https://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/MatrixURIs.html>).
>
> We (the BC Gov team, Markus, and I) offer this up for discussion here
> and on the DID Spec meeting tomorrow (Thursday 1PM PT—see reminder
> email to the list in the morning) as a "middle way" between the ultra
> lightweight approach propose by Manu and the heavier syntax proposed
> by Michael. Our conclusions were:
>
> 1. The issue we saw with Manu's proposal is that there is no
> syntactic delimiter between the "naked DID" (that identifies the
> DID subject) and the parameters.
> 2. The only issue we had with Michael Herman's proposal is that the
> syntax seemed heavier-weight (i.e., uses more delimiter
> characters) than necessary, particularly for a URL grammar.
>
> When Markus found the matrix parameter syntax, it turns out to use the
> semicolon that has long been the proposed delimiter to separate the
> "magic part" (as Manu puts it) from the naked DID. And it allows a
> sequence of parameters just like the naked DID allows a sequence of
> colon segments.
>
> Here is a link to a Google doc of the proposal
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TctFY8euBH2wq7Z8c9KccICDZUGZplvhoqlHlFMahGk/edit?usp=sharing>.
> A copy is included below for easy reference and archiving on the CCG list.
>
> DID Matrix Parameters Syntax Proposal
>
> 2019-04-04
>
>
> Introduction
>
> This proposal describes a single simple flexible mechanism to enable
> DIDs to be extended to address other resources besides a DID document
> (both immutable/decentralized resources and mutable Web resources)
> while keeping all the advantages of DIDs and DID documents (global
> uniqueness, persistence, immutability, verifiability, decentralization).
>
>
> Matrix Parameters
>
> This proposal uses a syntax for adding parameters to a URI originally
> proposed by Tim Berners-Lee
> <https://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/MatrixURIs.html>and others in 1996,
> and more recently discussed in this Stack Overflow thread
> <https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2048121/url-matrix-parameters-vs-request-parameters>.
> Each matrix parameter is delimited with a semicolon, and the name of
> the parameter is separated from the value by an equals sign.
>
>
> ANBF
>
> The revisions required to support matrix parameters in DID URLs are
> highlighted in redbelow. Note that matrix parameters are all expressed
> within the authority component of a DID URL, leaving the path, query,
> and fragment for normal Web URL usages.
>
> did = "did:" method ":" method-specific-id
>
> method = 1*method-char
>
> method-char = %x61-7A / DIGIT
>
> method-specific-id = idstring *( ":" idstring )
>
> idstring = 1*idchar
>
> idchar = ALPHA / DIGIT / "." / "-"
>
> did-url = did *( ";" param
> )path-abempty [ "?" query ] [ "#" fragment ]
>
> param = param-name [ "=" param-value ]
>
> param-name = 1*param-char
>
> param-value = *param-char
>
> param-char = ALPHA / DIGIT / "." / "-" / "_" / pct-encoded
>
>
> Parameter Names
>
> The ABNF above does not specify any particular parameter names. The
> proposal is for the DID spec to specify several standard parameter
> names for use with addressing secondary resources within a DID
> document, and then leave other parameter names to be specified by DID
> method specifications (some of which could, with broad enough
> adoption, migrate to become standard parameter names in future
> versions of the DID spec).
>
>
> Basic Examples
>
> These examples illustrate possible parameter names. VDR = Verifiable
> Data Registry.
>
> Example
>
>
>
> Description
>
> did:example:1234abcd;service=agent
>
>
>
> Selects a service by name
>
> did:example:1234abcd;service-type=hub
>
>
>
> Selects a service by type
>
> did:example:1234abcd;type=schema;id=1234
>
>
>
> Identifies VDR content by type
>
> did:example:1234abcd;type=creddef;id=a1bc3d4
>
>
>
> Identifies VDR content by type
>
> did:example:1234abcd;hashlink=hl:
>
> zQmWvQxTqbG2Z9HPJgG57jjwR154cKhbtJenbyYTWkjgF3e:
>
> zuh8iaLobXC8g9tfma1CSTtYBakXeSTkHrYA5hmD4F7dCLw8XYwZ1GWyJ3zwF
>
>
>
> Identifies VDR content using a standard content-addressing syntax
> (hashlink <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sporny-hashlink-00>)
>
>
> Service Reference Example
>
> A DID service reference is a DID URL that includes a path and/or query
> (and optionally a fragment after the path and/or query). The proposal
> is that the DID Resolution spec would define an unambiguous transform
> from a DID service reference into a concrete URL.
>
> did:example:1234abcd;service=agent/path/goes/here?forward=true#alert
>
> If the selected service endpoint (whose id property had a value of
> “agent”) had the following URL…
>
> https://example.com/12345678
>
> Then the transform from the original DID service reference would
> produce the following concrete URL:
>
> https://example.com/12345678/path/goes/here?forward=true#alert
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 7:30 AM Michael Herman (Parallelspace)
> <mwherman@parallelspace.net <mailto:mwherman@parallelspace.net>> wrote:
>
> Correction: “Document Documents” should have read “DID Documents”
>
>
>
> *From:* Michael Herman (Parallelspace) <mwherman@parallelspace.net
> <mailto:mwherman@parallelspace.net>>
> *Sent:* April 3, 2019 8:26 AM
> *To:* jonnycrunch <jonnycrunch@me.com <mailto:jonnycrunch@me.com>>
> *Cc:* Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com
> <mailto:msporny@digitalbazaar.com>>; W3C Credentials CG
> <public-credentials@w3.org <mailto:public-credentials@w3.org>>
> *Subject:* RE: A simpler approach to DID services and
> content-addressing
>
>
>
> RE: - push the ABNF URL rules to be declared in the individual DID
> Methods, much like how currently RESTful API document their endpoints
>
>
>
> The *did-uri-spec* fully supports this requirement via something
> called Domain-Specific DID Grammars. For example, there is a DSDG
> for “Document Documents”; another for “DID Document Collections”,
> etc. (and they can be composed). Watch this video to learn more
> (slightly dated already):
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdLm2jHuADg&list=PLU-rWqHm5p45c9jFftlYcr4XIWcZb0yCv&index=4
>
>
>
> Also note that except for the Domain-Specific DID Grammar concept,
> the *did-uri-spec* grammar is strictly a syntax-level
> specification. It doesn’t mandate the implementation of any
> predefined set of *$transformer-options*. It’s just a set of
> generic syntax rules for a generic *did-uri* syntax. I’ve include
> a copy below. NOTE: This is different from the “DID ABNF” grammar
> where a strong set of semantics is implied by encoding of the
> special characters “#”, “!”, and “$”.
>
>
>
> [In a few minutes, I’ll be starting a roadtrip to Seattle for the
> next couple days and won’t be online as much. But feel free to
> call me in the car – no advance notice required – I’ll welcome the
> conversation. +1 416-524-7702]
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Michael
>
>
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Michael Herman (Toronto/Calgary/Seattle)
>
> Independent Blockchain Developer
>
> Hyperonomy Business Blockchain / Parallelspace Corporation
>
>
>
> W: http://hyperonomy.com <http://hyperonomy.com/>
>
> C: +1 416 524-7702
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* jonnycrunch <jonnycrunch@me.com <mailto:jonnycrunch@me.com>>
> *Sent:* April 3, 2019 7:52 AM
> *To:* Michael Herman (Parallelspace) <mwherman@parallelspace.net
> <mailto:mwherman@parallelspace.net>>
> *Cc:* Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com
> <mailto:msporny@digitalbazaar.com>>; W3C Credentials CG
> <public-credentials@w3.org <mailto:public-credentials@w3.org>>
> *Subject:* Re: A simpler approach to DID services and
> content-addressing
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Both of these approached seem a bit over-engineered and
> over-reaching for my taste.
>
>
>
> I really like the content id and hash-linking approach, and can
> work some magic to transform and interoperate. however….
>
>
>
> My big concern regarding this concept of all DID methods using the
> same ABNF URL rules to all for “Changing service providers” as
> that not all service providers will support all methods.
>
>
>
> Not to mention in our approach (IPID) there is no service
> provider. You are your own service provider. It is a
> distributed, not just decentralized, solution.
>
>
>
> This seems to be overreaching authority into each of the DID
> methods and forcing compliance and thus losing autonomy and
> self-sovereignty
>
>
>
>
>
> I’d like to prioritize:
>
> - ABNF rules to separate the naked DID and rest fo the DID URL
>
> - push the ABNF URL rules to be declared in the individual DID
> Methods, much like how currently RESTful API document their endpoints
>
> - finalizing the DID document spec and clarify the required
> attributes with hardened rules for a JSON schema declaration and
> testing
>
> - work on interoperability tests for resolution and validating
> signatures/proofs issued as verifiable credentials
>
>
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Jonny
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Apr 3, 2019, at 12:49 AM, Michael Herman (Parallelspace)
> <mwherman@parallelspace.net
> <mailto:mwherman@parallelspace.net>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Manu,
>
>
>
> Here's simpler solution using the
> Hyperonomy *did-uri-spec* specification and grammar. See the
> attached "Page 47" slide where I've tried to:
>
> 1. capture your 3 use cases, then
> 2. create a *did-uri-spec* compliant an example *did-uri* for
> each use case, and finally
> 3. added a description of the output.
>
> I've also attached a copy of the *did-uri-spec* grammar
> (defined using ABNF notation). See attached image with a
> black background.
>
>
>
> RE: "resolution algorithms"
>
>
>
> This is a little more difficult to explain but for the most
> part, the "resolution algorithms" you describe are actually
> "parsing algorithms". When using a grammar defined using ABNF
> notation, the pattern matching, etc. that takes place in the
> automatically generated parser (automatically generated from
> the ABNF description of the grammar) as it processes
> a *did-uri* is automatic. i.e. there's not need to describe it
> English if you have a description using ABNF notation. I hope
> this makes sense.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Michael
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com
> <mailto:msporny@digitalbazaar.com>>
> *Sent:* March 31, 2019 1:38 PM
> *To:* W3C Credentials CG
> *Subject:* A simpler approach to DID services and
> content-addressing
>
>
>
> Apologies for missing the last DID spec call, some of us
> thought it had
> been cancelled due to KNOW2019 and travel. I was reading the
> minutes
> from the last meeting[1] and was happy to see two use cases
> identified
> as driving factors for the DID URI scheme syntax (aka, ABNF)
> discussion.
> I'm also attempting to build on the work that Drummond and Ken did
> during RWoT8 (so you two may see some stuff that's familiar in
> here).
>
> Let me try and summarize the use cases that seem to be driving
> the DID
> URI scheme syntax:
>
> 1. Pat wants to publish blogging content in a way where they
> can switch
> service providers, but the relative URLs don't change. For
> example,
> <PORTABLE_SERVICE_PROVIDER_URL>/2019-03-01/lunch-in-barcelona
> ... which would be transformed to:
> <CURRENT_SERVICE_PROVIDER_URL>/2019-03-01/lunch-in-barcelona
>
> 2. Yael wants to publish content in a way that ensures the content
> integrity of the content. For example,
> <CONTENT_URL><SEPARATOR><CONTENT_INTEGRITY_CHECK>
> ... which would be transformed to:
> <PROTECTED_CONTENT_URL> (which returns tamper-evident data)
>
> Now, let's narrow that down to the specification we're talking
> about,
> which is the DID Specification. The pattern would change to
> something like:
>
> <START_OF_DID><MAGIC><PATH>
>
> and
>
> <START_OF_DID><MAGIC><CONTENT_INTEGRITY_CHECK>
>
> Much of this discussion has been around the <MAGIC> bit above.
> We know
> what we want at the end, but there are many things that could
> go in the
> middle. I should also note that these are two totally
> different use
> cases and the group is probably thrashing because you're
> attempting to
> solve both of them simultaneously. In this case, though, I
> think there
> is at least one simple answer that doesn't require
> overly-complicated
> microsyntaxes. So, here goes:
>
> Use a colon-delimited keyword that you tack on to the end of a
> "bare DID".
>
> That's it. Here's how it looks in practice for the two use
> cases above.
>
> For the "Portable URL":
>
> did:example:12345678:path:blog:/2019-03-01/lunch-in-barcelona
>
> ... which would be transformed to:
>
> https://example.org/2019-03-01/lunch-in-barcelona
>
> For the "DID with Content-addressing" (example assumes a
> Sovrin-like
> requirement to get a content addressed schema):
>
> did:example:schema:hl:z3aq31uzgnZBuWNzUB
>
> ... which would enable you to fetch things from that
> particular DID
> Registry using content-based addressing.
>
> The general matching pattern for the syntaxes are:
>
> For the "Portable URL" use case:
>
> did:<did-method>:<method-specific-id>:path:<service-id>:<service-path>
>
> and for the "DID with Content-addressing" use case:
>
> did:<did-method>:<method-specific-id>:<hashlink>
>
> Note how the use cases are handled with things that you put
> *at the end*
> of the DID URI syntax? This is on purpose for two reasons:
>
> 1. It ensures that DID Method authors have very broad control
> over what
> happens in <method-specific-id>, and
> 2. It enables decentralized innovation to occur while
> providing a clear
> adoption path into the core DID spec. (I think this is a
> nuance that
> many people might not get right now, but that's ok).
>
> Here are two potential resolution algorithms for both use cases:
>
> For the "Portable URL" use case:
>
> 1. Search for ":path:" from the end of the DID URL.
> 2. Split on the first two colons, you should have a 3-tuple:
> ("path", service-id, service-path).
> 3. Search the DID Document "service" property for a service
> with an "id" ending in "#<service-id" and save this value
> as "service-prefix".
> 4. Concatenate "service-prefix" with "service-path" and return
> this value.
>
> For the "DID with Content-addressing" use case:
>
> 1. Search for ":hl:" from the end of the DID URL.
> 2. Split on the first colon, you should have a 2-tuple:
> ("hl", hashlink-value).
> 3. Dereference the DID URL and cryptographically hash
> the content.
> 4. Compare the hash of the content against the value
> of the hashlink. If the hashes match, the content is
> secure.
>
> I believe the proposal above addresses all of the use cases
> raised by
> Evernym and Sovrin. I also think it's compatible with Veres
> One and
> IPFS-based DID Methods. The benefits of this approach are:
>
> 1. It ensures that DID Method authors have very broad control
> over what
> happens in their <method-specific-id>, and
> 2. It enables decentralized innovation to occur for these sorts of
> DID URI syntax extensions while providing a clear adoption
> path into
> the core DID spec, and
> 3. It doesn't require microsyntaxes more than what we have in the
> specification right now, and
> 4. The grammar parsing rules are extremely simple, and
> 5. It only requires one type of separator character for the
> DID URI
> syntax, the ":" character.
>
> What did I miss? Why doesn't this work? I checked this against
> all the
> current use cases (but did not elaborate on every one as this
> email is
> long enough as it is). Would this work for your use case?
>
> -- manu
>
> [1]https://raw.githubusercontent.com/w3c-ccg/meetings/gh-pages/2019-03-28-did-spec/2019-03-28-irc.log
>
> [2]https://github.com/WebOfTrustInfo/rwot8-barcelona/blob/master/draft-documents/did-spec-refinement.md#feature-refinement
>
> --
> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> blog: Veres One Decentralized Identifier Blockchain Launches
> https://tinyurl.com/veres-one-launches
>
> <manu-page-47.png><did-uri-spec-simple-2019-04-03.abnf.png>
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 4 April 2019 11:43:38 UTC