- From: Markus Sabadello <markus@danubetech.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2019 18:53:55 +0400
- To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, W3C Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>
+1 good addition for tomorrow's DID call agenda (I'll send it out in a
few minutes).
Markus
On 8/14/19 6:45 PM, Manu Sporny wrote:
> Hey Markus,
>
> This is a continuation of a discussion (with an agenda request) that is
> going on here:
>
> https://github.com/WebOfTrustInfo/btcr-hackathon-2019/issues/9#issuecomment-521238505
>
> On 8/14/19 9:08 AM, Markus Sabadello wrote:
>> I know during the BTCR hackathon I said that the Satoshi audit trail
>> should be "resolution metadata" that is separate from the DID
>> Document, and I still feel that's correct, but after reading the
>> thread at #4 as well as @msporny 's comment at #18 (comment) ("take
>> that Satoshi Audit Trail and tack it on to your DID Document proof"),
>> I'm not 100% convinced myself.
>>
>> So I'd like to make this concept of a DID Resolution Result
>> <https://w3c-ccg.github.io/did-resolution/#did-resolution-result>
>> the main topic for tomorrow's DID call, to think this through:
> +1
>
> I'd also like to request that we spend a little bit of time "hardening"
> the DID WG to W3C member shenanigans that typically happen at the
> beginning of a Working Group... namely, some big company jumping into
> the group with a counter-proposal to the DID spec and attempting to have
> the W3C CCG DID spec thrown out as a starting point.
>
> We need to make sure the community understands the attack vector and
> knows how we can respond to it.
>
> -- manu
>
Received on Wednesday, 14 August 2019 14:54:26 UTC