Re: Call for DID Method implementations

Thanks Manu, this is very helpful. Given the purpose, I'm not seeing
anything that would require pushing out the deadline for BTCR.

Other BTCR folks should feel free to double-check me. And other DID method
implementors should review Manu's response, especially to see if they are
impacted by these "at risk" items.

Thanks again,
Kim


On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 5:02 PM Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
wrote:

> On 5/18/21 6:57 PM, Kim Hamilton wrote:
> > I propose:
> >
> > * Pushing the deadline out based on input from implementers (like us) *
> > Allowing case-by-case extensions
> >
> > Please respond to this thread if you'd also like an extension for your
> > method, and we can try to figure out whether a global extension or
> > case-by-case makes sense.
>
> Hey Kim, thanks for the feedback. I'll take this back to the DID WG to make
> sure they consider the request (or feel free to raise an issue on the DID
> test
> suite).
>
> To be clear about the deadline, this is the deadline for implementers to
> provide feedback during the W3C Candidate Recommendation phase... all the
> DID
> WG is looking for here is that at least two independent implementers
> implemented each feature in the DID Core specification. If we get more
> implementations for each feature, great... but it's unnecessary for this
> stage
> of the standardization process.
>
> More importantly:
>
> Any implementer can submit implementations at any point from now until the
> DID
> test suite ceases to exist, which is expected to be around for as long as
> DIDs
> continue to be a thing.
>
> So, don't mistake the CR implementation deadline for some notion of never
> being able to have your DID Method implementation added to the test
> suite...
> the option of adding your implementation to the DID test suite will be
> there
> in the future for those that won't have their DID Methods ready by the CR
> deadline.
>
> More elaboration below... but folks that have a passing interest can stop
> reading now.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
> To put this in perspective, we already have 9+ independent and conforming
> implementations of DID Syntax ABNF rules:
>
>
> https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/shigeya/did-test-suite/pull/105.html#conformance-by-test-suites-2
>
> ... but as you can see just below that link above... zero implementations
> of
> the `hl` DID Parameter, `service` DID Parameter, and `relativeRef` DID
> Parameter. It's those latter items that we're currently concerned about...
> if
> we don't get at least two independent implementations of those features, we
> will have to consider removing them from the specification before
> advancing it.
>
> If BTCR (or any DID Method) is going to implement features that are not
> implemented at present, then the WG would probably wait on BTCR to
> implement.
> If BTCR is going to implement the same features everyone else has
> implemented,
> then the WG is far less likely to wait on BTCR.
>
> The DID WG's charter ends in September and we need at least two months
> before
> then to wrap things up and move the spec to PR, get an official vote from
> W3C,
> make any W3C Member change requests at that point (possibly moving the item
> back into the WG), and then publishing the final REC... and that means we
> really should be completely done by the end of June, and that's not even
> counting if we have to go through another CR, which will take another
> month...
> which means we should be out of CR by the end of May.
>
> All that to say -- we're cutting it extremely close. I'm not going to be
> hyperbolic and say that if the spec isn't done by the time the charter
> expires
> that we won't have a DID spec... it just creates an enormous amount of
> pain on
> the DID WG, W3C Membership, W3C staff and the rest of the folks that have
> to
> coordinate a charter extension. Those sorts of things are painful
> processes at
> W3C on purpose -- they consume time and resources that could be used on
> groups
> that did what they said they would do during the time that was allotted to
> them.
>
> At this point, the thing that is most likely to push the deadline out is
> lack
> of implementation support for features the DID WG thinks are key to the
> specification.
>
> Hope that helps shed some light on what this deadline is, how implementers
> should think about it, what is likely to push the deadline out, and the
> dangers of doing that.
>
> -- manu
>
> --
> Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/
> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> blog: Veres One Decentralized Identifier Blockchain Launches
> https://tinyurl.com/veres-one-launches
>
>