- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2020 13:38:13 -0400
- To: public-did-wg@w3.org
On 4/17/20 11:09 AM, Justin Richer wrote: > I do not agree with your rewording of the charter line > below, though (as I’ve said on numerous occasions) I do think we should > have fully put resolution in scope for this working group from the > start, and had assumed it would be. Justin, thanks for elaborating upon your position. I'm having a hard time understanding your mental model for the test suite, so it may take me a couple of more reads of your email to understand where you're coming from. I didn't see a concrete counter-proposal for the suggested text in my proposal: Could you please provide a concrete counter-proposal, even if it is "strike that bullet item". The text I suggested was to cover our bases with organizations that were not under the impression that we'd do the sort of thing you are proposing in this WG (or some variation thereof). That is, if everyone agrees to the interpretation of the proposed item you referred to, we cover all of our foreseeable bases. If we just agree to what you're proposing, which again, I do not understand fully yet, but will try again over the weekend, we may not have all of our bases covered. > I do think we should have fully put resolution in scope for > this working group from the start, and had assumed it would > be. That is the point of contention. We should not assume anyone else thought that. In fact, during our first face-to-face meeting, we have a long conversation about just this topic with no clear resolution. To further clarify, Digital Bazaar, absolutely did not agree to do *all caps* "DID Resolution" in this WG. The specification and implementations were nowhere ready and I suggest that they're still nowhere ready. From our perspective, what we're contemplating doing is new and could be argued as within scope, and I've done my best to put forward a defensible argument that would allow us to pull a variation of your current PR in if we can get the group to get to a consensus position on the points I raised. One of those points, the one you outlined, feels vital to me, because it allows us to test in both directions. Write the tests as you're suggesting, or write the tests against concrete implementations. Both of those being in scope. Perhaps the way forward is to see if people feel that we'd be covered if we just didn't add the bullet item... personally, it's a risk I'd rather not take. I'll get an official stance from Digital Bazaar before the call... I expect other companies would need to do something similar. -- 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
Received on Friday, 17 April 2020 17:38:28 UTC