W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-did-wg@w3.org > August 2020

Re: DID WG Special Topic Call (Service Endpoints)

From: Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 15:19:58 -0400
Message-ID: <CANYRo8hweWXcuLHmuv_8ReahFMCe+ethHHgxvrL7GbRGb_HrYA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Daniel Buchner <Daniel.Buchner@microsoft.com>
Cc: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, "public-did-wg@w3.org" <public-did-wg@w3.org>
I made a compromise proposal in
https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/382#issuecomment-683085862

- Adrian

On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 3:12 PM Daniel Buchner <Daniel.Buchner@microsoft.com>
wrote:

> Yep, we just started work a couple weeks ago on moving Linked Domains
> service endpoints and the integration of Well Known DID Configuration files
> into production code.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
> Sent: Friday, August 28, 2020 11:50 AM
> To: public-did-wg@w3.org
> Subject: 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://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Fmanusporny%2F&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cdaniel.buchner%40microsoft.com%7Cfa25eed5401d4fb8223108d84b834b61%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637342374576597828&amp;sdata=MxW1J2H6V2nhJWWmNjOVDFHDW49DYWoOMxxzjtgw%2B%2FY%3D&amp;reserved=0
> Founder/CEO
> <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Fmanusporny%2F&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cdaniel.buchner%40microsoft.com%7Cfa25eed5401d4fb8223108d84b834b61%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637342374576597828&amp;sdata=MxW1J2H6V2nhJWWmNjOVDFHDW49DYWoOMxxzjtgw%2B%2FY%3D&amp;reserved=0Founder/CEO>
> - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> blog: Veres One Decentralized Identifier Blockchain Launches
>
> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftinyurl.com%2Fveres-one-launches&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cdaniel.buchner%40microsoft.com%7Cfa25eed5401d4fb8223108d84b834b61%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637342374576597828&amp;sdata=6N%2FZy7A4oup%2Byj3Y1NVoqkh53riW8NXllvFufGi9lMQ%3D&amp;reserved=0
>
>
Received on Friday, 28 August 2020 19:20:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 28 August 2020 19:20:23 UTC