- From: Patrick St-Louis <patrick.st-louis@opsecid.ca>
- Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2026 16:55:07 -0500
- To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Cc: Filip Kolarik <filip26@gmail.com>, "W3C Credentials CG (Public List)" <public-credentials@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAMmwNB9M5ZK1xdiYc-Oe3xacfs5G=3M7cy_PeA1e=5MOUuRzWA@mail.gmail.com>
If there's compatibility, I don't see why the webvh information website couldn't reference it. I'm unsure about creating a hard dependency in the specification. We use a secure peer to peer DIDComm protocol for witness requests in our implementation, and are unlikely to implement an HTTP API interface in the foreseeable future. I believe other implementers have also defined their API services for witnessing, which should be taken into consideration. We debated including an API definition in the witness/watcher service, and opted to define only watchers because witness governance is outside of the WebVH spec, and implementers shouldn't be restricted by special infrastructure requirements. However as mentioned, I think providing a reference API definition could be interesting. Perhaps did:cel could also include a dependency on a witness DIDComm protocol. This would also be interesting. On Sun, Mar 1, 2026 at 4:40 PM Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 27, 2026 at 11:51 AM Filip Kolarik <filip26@gmail.com> wrote: > > I’m excited to share an experimental witness service > > > > While designed for did:cel, the service can also be used to witness > arbitrary events, providing a lightweight, verifiable, and high-performance > proof layer for other decentralized or event-driven applications. > > This is awesome, Filip! I really like the fact that it highlights a > number of things: > > Oblivious witness services: > > 1. Can be simple and quick to build. > 2. Can be cost effective to operate. > 3. Can be lightning fast (with c14n templates). > 4. Can leverage industry standard HSMs. > 5. Can be generalized to any market vertical. > > Would you have any aversion to us writing down the API for the service > in a spec? It feels like it should be a separate, really lightweight > spec that both the CEL spec, and did:cel depend on. I'd love to see > did:webvh depend on it as well, thoughts on that from the did:webvh > folks? > > -- manu > > -- > Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/ > Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. > https://www.digitalbazaar.com/ > >
Received on Sunday, 1 March 2026 21:55:23 UTC