- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 12:59:21 -0400
- To: Oliver Terbu <oliver.terbu@consensys.net>, Daniel Hardman <daniel.hardman@evernym.com>
- Cc: W3C DID Working Group <public-did-wg@w3.org>
On 8/27/20 2:03 PM, Oliver Terbu wrote: > People that rely on service endpoints and who do problematic things will > continue using service endpoints and doing problematic things by > defining their own @context and their own service endpoint property. Yes, but at least then we could disavow any sort of WG-condoned usage of the property... :P Your point is valid and taken. > Removing service endpoints from the specification would just move the > problem to an area where we cannot provide privacy guidance. Yes, true, but what if our privacy guidance is "Don't use them at all, service endpoints are a really bad idea."? :) I'm only half joking... there are enough people that are convinced in the group that Service Endpoints are necessary in DID Documents to probably carry them through to global standard. I don't, however, think we've had a good discussion about alternatives. I've opened this issue to have that discussion: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/382 -- 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, 28 August 2020 16:59:36 UTC