Re: DID Formal Objection Status Update (Dec 2021)

No.

Speaking as a chair of this Community Group...
On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 8:09 AM Michael Herman (Trusted Digital Web) <
mwherman@parallelspace.net> wrote:

> At the risk of being repetitious, we need to be following the
> #OpenToInnovation principle:
> https://hyperonomy.com/2019/03/12/internet-protocols-and-standards-not-only-need-to-be-open-but-more-importantly-open-to-innovation/
>

We are a W3C Community group.
"We NEED to be following", the following:
https://www.w3.org/community/credentials/charter/
https://w3ctag.github.io/design-principles/
https://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/

And have other good guidance here:
https://tag.w3.org/findings/




> Also, from a systems architecture perspective, we need to have:
>
> i)                 A DID Identifier/Method specification that is separate
> from…
>
> ii)                a DID Protocol specification (e.g. something like “DID
> Trusted Transport Protocol” aka “didttp”).  …that is, something analogous
> to HTTP that natively understands/supports DID Identifiers/Methods
>
> …the same way DNS and HTTP are separated and have separate naming and
> protocol specifications, respectively.
>
>
>
> The current DID-CORE specification tries to conflate the 2 and I believe
> that’s a root cause of the current situation we find ourselves in.
>

Please take the above topic(s) up with the DID WG (not the CCG) when it
recharters (assuming this happens) after the FOs, that is assuming
membership in the WG.

In general, "need" is a very strong word, and I find an assertion that
anyone, especially a W3C Community group or Working group "needs" to follow
any arbitrary self created content completely out of line.

Please either move the topic of this thread to something constructive or
propose a work item and discuss in github issues if something being
suggested is inline with the work item criteria outlined in the charter:
https://www.w3.org/community/credentials/charter/

If anyone on this thread is an "Invited Expert" for a W3C Working Group,
and as this is a W3C mailing list I would recommend reviewing the agreement
here: https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2015/06-invited-expert.html
especially section 2.4 which outlines criteria around items that may be
considered promotional activities.