Re: DID WG Special Topic Call (Service Endpoints)

On 8/28/20 4:00 AM, Deventer, M.O. (Oskar) van wrote:
> That is just introducing another level of indirection. Also, it feels
> wrong to try and abolish an existing and working solution without
> providing an equally-well-worked-out alternative.

Are there DID Methods that use service endpoints today in their
implementations? Are these in production?

> The procedural perspective is that if there is no consensus to change
> something (e.g. deprecate service endpoints), then the spec remains
> unchanged, correct?

In this case, we haven't really discussed service endpoints in this
group in detail. It could still come out of the specification... btw
(Orie), this is an example of why I really don't like merging things
before there is broad consensus.

There was never consensus in this WG to have service endpoints; folks
felt it was useful so we put it in there in the CG because we wanted
people to experiment... but the argument now is "Oh, well, it's in the
spec, so we need consensus to remove it, right?!" -- so the burden of
proof is really on people to prove that we actually need service
endpoints in DID Documents.

I'm certainly not going to stand in the way on this particular item,
even though I think it's probably an anti-pattern. It'll just get
everyone fired up and drawing lines again right before CR, which we want
to avoid as a group.

What I would like the group to do, instead, is understand the
alternative options... and I'm positive that there are folks in the
group that do not understand all of the alternative options for
communicating service endpoints. I'd like us to take the opportunity to
educate the group rather than just assuming that service endpoints are a
foregone conclusion.

-- 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 18:50:28 UTC