Re: DID Spec Hardening Proposal V3

Hi Melvin,

Perhaps https://identity.foundation/.well-known/resources/did-configuration/
 helps?

Thanks,
[image: Mattr website] <https://mattr.global>
*Tobias Looker*
Mattr
+64 (0) 27 378 0461
tobias.looker@mattr.global
[image: Mattr website] <https://mattr.global> [image: Mattr on LinkedIn]
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/mattrglobal> [image: Mattr on Twitter]
<https://twitter.com/mattrglobal> [image: Mattr on Github]
<https://github.com/mattrglobal>
This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are
not the intended recipient, you should not read it - please contact me
immediately, destroy it, and do not copy or use any part of this
communication or disclose anything about it. Thank you. Please note that
this communication does not designate an information system for the
purposes of the Electronic Transactions Act 2002.


On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 9:40 AM Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 at 04:29, Kyle Den Hartog <kdenhar@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I definitely second this. It will help a lot for web resolver and would
>> also be beneficial for DID authentication. If we could include this in the
>> spec, it would help a lot with authentication adoption.
>>
>
> I just wanted to give a gentle bump on this (older) idea, as the DID spec
> is nearing completion
>
> ie: to publish some of the DIDs at: /.well-known/did/
>
> e.g. for consistent publishing, canonical urls, ability to index, to link,
> to search etc.
>
> There seemed to be support for it at the time, but of course, water has
> passed under the bridge since then
>
> Totally understand that there is a freeze, and if it is an idea that
> DID'nt make it :)
>
> Dont mind much either way, but wanted to give a gentle bump, in case it
> fell of the radar, and the group still wanted it
>
>
>>
>> On Nov 25, 2017 4:34 PM, "=Drummond Reed" <drummond.reed@evernym.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Melvin, I like the idea of sites being able to publish a DID via their
>>> HTTP(S) URLs at /.well-known/did/ . It would be easy for a DID resolver
>>> to verify that against a DID document if we established a standard service
>>> endpoint for verifying the association of a website URL with a DID.
>>>
>>> Thoughts from others?
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 12:48 PM, Melvin Carvalho <
>>> melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 22 November 2017 at 09:53, =Drummond Reed <drummond.reed@evernym.com
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> For those W3C Credentials Community Group members who are not taking
>>>>> the Wednesday before Thanksgiving off and would like to attend tomorrow's
>>>>> special DID Spec Closure Call #1, here is the updated DID Spec
>>>>> Hardening Proposal
>>>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1je9Bnhe-1tLgP1bfCSUjvbQ_qllwCz042aGncWX7Uio/edit?usp=sharing>
>>>>> (called V3 because the proposers have iterated it twice based on the
>>>>> feedback received from the first proposal).
>>>>>
>>>>> Reviewing this and contrasting it with the current Working Draft
>>>>> (Decentralized Identifiers V0.7) will be the main topic of tomorrow's call
>>>>> (10AM Pacific Time/1PM Eastern Time—see the invitation emails earlier on
>>>>> the mailing list).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for sharing this.
>>>>
>>>> I noticed that the http URL where you can dereference the did is in a
>>>> number of places e.g. .identity or the root
>>>>
>>>> It would be easier to create a global web of reputation for indexers,
>>>> software and libraries if this was in a relatively consistent place
>>>>
>>>> Typically, one would use the /.well-known/ pattern similar to
>>>> /.well-known/ni/ used in RFC 6920 it may be possible to use
>>>> /.well-kwown/did/
>>>>
>>>> If that's considered too restrictive perhaps it could be an example or
>>>> an opt in and / or use the rel=canonical pattern if it occurs in more than
>>>> one place
>>>>
>>>> I could picture this eco system getting quickly off the ground it it
>>>> were easy to create reverse indexes and offer services to everyone
>>>> consuming did's
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> =Drummond
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>

-- 
This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are 
not the intended recipient, you should not read it - please contact me 
immediately, destroy it, and do not copy or use any part of this 
communication or disclose anything about it. Thank you. Please note that 
this communication does not designate an information system for the 
purposes of the Electronic Transactions Act 2002.