- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2022 10:20:34 -0400
- To: W3C Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>
On Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 6:14 PM Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote: > So perhaps there is some utility in a more generic, multihash:, scheme. Hey Melvin, a couple of other data points for you: * I've had a number of discussions with Roberto and Lucas, who are working on the HTTP Digest Fields specification in the IETF HTTP WG. The last time we chatted, which was many months ago, I was suggesting "mh" for the "multihash scheme". There was a general, "Ok, we'll add that once it's defined tenor to the call" * There are a number of us that are going to take some of the Multiformats specifications into the IETF, namely Multibase and Multihash: https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-multiformats-multibase-05.html https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-multiformats-multihash-04.html ... and where Multikey is going to be done is a bit up in the air right now. We might define it first in VCWG, and then move it over to IETF... or start it at IETF, we'll have to see what the VCWG wants to do there. One thing we could do is just define it in the Multihash I-D for now and then register it as a provisional scheme w/ IANA: https://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes/uri-schemes.xhtml Thoughts? -- manu -- Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/ Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. News: Digital Bazaar Announces New Case Studies (2021) https://www.digitalbazaar.com/
Received on Wednesday, 3 August 2022 14:21:24 UTC