Re: Idea for a Proposal: Notation for resolving a DID identifier directly to the underlying object or collection of objects associated with the DID identifier

I don't think extensions that violate the DID specifications should be accepted into the registry IMO. For example, the DID Resolution specification doesn't allow a resolver to return an arbitrary JSON structure. It's very specific about what can be in a returned DID Resolution Result: https://w3c-ccg.github.io/did-resolution/#did-resolution-result

I think triple-indirection is a more standardizable approach for returning a DID Object based on its DID Identifier: https<https://youtu.be/tipzckdnUbU>://youtu.be/tipzckdnUbU<https://youtu.be/tipzckdnUbU>

Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>
________________________________
From: Niels Klomp <nklomp@sphereon.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2021 8:09:04 AM
To: Michael Herman (Trusted Digital Web) <mwherman@parallelspace.net>; Charles E. Lehner <charles.lehner@spruceid.com>; public-credentials@w3.org <public-credentials@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Idea for a Proposal: Notation for resolving a DID identifier directly to the underlying object or collection of objects associated with the DID identifier

Inline:

Van: Michael Herman (Trusted Digital Web) <mwherman@parallelspace.net>
Verzonden: donderdag 30 december 2021 15:51
Aan: Charles E. Lehner <charles.lehner@spruceid.com>; public-credentials@w3.org <public-credentials@w3.org>
Onderwerp: Re: Idea for a Proposal: Notation for resolving a DID identifier directly to the underlying object or collection of objects associated with the DID identifier

>> RE: then when a resolver calls the associated VDR using that DID URL, the VDR returns the identified digital resource, not the DID document.
>Charles, I'm surprised someone hasn't jumped in n this sooner: what type of resolver are you referring to? ...by that I mean if the resolver is a DID Resolution specification compliant resolver, the resolver can only return DID Document compliant resources (or portions of a DID Document compliant resource). ... if the above is true, supporting a TOIP query string parameter that can return arbitrary JSON structures will break interoperability of the DID ecosystem.

That depends on whether the resolver supports the respective parts of the DID spec registry. It is mentioned in there: https://www.w3.org/TR/did-spec-registries/#resource.
So it might not be part of DID-core, but just like other extensions it probably is supported by some resolvers.

> Your thoughts? ...my knowledge of the DID Resolution spec may be out of date.

It is nice that the DID spec allows for extensions. On the other hand I guess it also means we see more divergence, since not every implementation will support every extension, resulting in interop issues.
Kind regards,

Niels Klomp



From: Charles E. Lehner <charles.lehner@spruceid.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2021, 9:59 p.m.
To: public-credentials@w3.org
Subject: Re: Idea for a Proposal: Notation for resolving a DID identifier directly to the underlying object or collection of objects associated with the DID identifier

Hi Michael,

On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 03:21:18 +0000
"Michael Herman (Trusted Digital Web)" <mwherman@parallelspace.net> wrote:

> What is a suitable notation to short circuit all of the above steps
> to simply return the underlying object or collection of objects
> associated with a particular DID identifier in a more direct way?

There is a "resource" DID URL parameter specified by ToIP - could that work?

  https://www.w3.org/TR/did-spec-registries/#resource
  https://wiki.trustoverip.org/display/HOME/DID+URL+Resource+Parameter+Specification

> If a DID method specification supports this parameter, and if a DID URL using that method includes the parameter with a valid value (either true or a valid media type name), then when a resolver calls the associated VDR using that DID URL, the VDR returns the identified digital resource, not the DID document.

Regards,
Charles E. Lehner