- From: Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 14:13:30 -0500
- To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, public-credentials@w3.org
On 11/26/19 11:56 AM, Manu Sporny wrote: > On 11/26/19 4:30 AM, Markus Sabadello wrote: >> And "keyAgreementMethod" instead of "keyAgreement" etc.? > > Yes, we clearly have an issue with naming consistency in the spec and > will need to go one way or the other (and there are valid arguments for > going either way). > > I think the general argument against tacking "method" onto the end of > everything was that we'd end up needlessly placing method at the end of > lots of properties on the DID Document. > > However, tacking method onto the end of everything that is actually a > verification method makes it more clear that it's a method and not > something like a proof or list of public keys or anything else. > > ... this discussion is clearly going to devolve into bike-shedding[1] > territory. :) In general, my view of the history for naming these things was that `method` was avoided until it was felt necessary to make a distinction between a set of assertions and a set of verification methods that were authorized for the purpose of making such assertions. It may be an imperfect result ... but one whereby changing it now could prove problematic for some non-trivial number of implementations. This includes anyone building on top of VC 1.0; that spec shipped with `authentication` and `assertionMethod`. We may also find that after must discussion we'd wind right back up with the same naming compromise. -- Dave Longley CTO Digital Bazaar, Inc.
Received on Tuesday, 26 November 2019 19:13:36 UTC