- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2020 09:41:45 -0500
- To: W3C Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>
On 1/20/20 7:54 PM, Daniel Hardman wrote: > I'm simply disputing the assumption that DIDComm + HTTP Signatures > is a no-brainer improvement over DIDComm by itself. I'm looking at the conversation and not seeing anyone assert that "DIDComm + HTTP Signatures is a no-brainer improvement over DIDComm by itself" in this thread. So yes, agreed, but I don't think anyone would disagree with your statement. To review, you said: > I don't think this work is relevant to the DIDComm binding for HTTP. Then I said: > The argument for why DIDComm might want to use HTTP Signatures is the > same. Note that I said "might". I didn't say it's a "no-brainer". I was responding to your "I don't think this work is relevant to DIDComm binding for HTTP" by effectively saying "well, here's one way it could be relevant". Then you said: > But let's not say it's free otherwise. ... but no one asserted that it was free. Specifically, I said: > it doesn't cost you much To summarize, I was merely responding to your "I don't think this work is relevant to the DIDComm binding for HTTP" statement. Hopefully I've highlighted why it is relevant, and there might be circumstances where using it might be beneficial. I have a few in mind, but don't want to go there yet because having that discussion isn't useful if there are people that think that HTTP Signatures are not relevant to the DIDComm binding for HTTP. -- manu -- Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny) Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. blog: Veres One Decentralized Identifier Blockchain Launches https://tinyurl.com/veres-one-launches
Received on Tuesday, 21 January 2020 14:41:56 UTC