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

Re: DID WG Special Topic Call (Service Endpoints)

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2020 12:42:11 -0400
To: daniel.hardman@evernym.com
Cc: W3C DID Working Group <public-did-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <6b3e1617-61ca-b901-e57b-3fe556d5b0da@digitalbazaar.com>
On 8/28/20 3:38 PM, Daniel Hardman wrote:
> Yes. Daniel B has noted Microsoft's investment in them. Your own Veres
> One ledger has had service endpoint validation logic since at least late
> last year
> (https://github.com/veres-one/veres-one-validator/pull/30/files#diff-9f2be51e5e4e2dd1bb6455eef32e4472R115).
> The entire Aries and Indy ecosystems also uses service endpoints. The
> first production deployment from this ecosystem was of the VON Network
> in late 2018, IIRC. Evernym has multiple production deployments, and I
> believe Trinsic, SecureKey, Kiva, and others may as well.

Let's move this thread to:

https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/382

You're making good points that I'd like to respond to... let's take the
conversation to the issue tracker.

The rest of my response has more to do with the "why now", and that
doesn't belong on the issue tracker.

> If, on the other hand, you want to assert that there has long been
> dissent, I think that is a fair point, since consensus != universal
> agreement. 

Yes, that's what I'm asserting. I'm suggesting that the dissent is
growing based on how the ecosystem has developed over the past year or
so and we may want to reconsider before we set this feature in stone. We
may be able to simplify while supporting everyone's use cases.

> You noted then that you were comfortable with that feature gap, but
> you didn't propose to take out the feature from the spec. Nor did you
> express any of the concerns you are now raising. Why not?

For at least these reasons:

* I didn't feel as strongly about it back then as I do today...
  there wasn't as much clarity around alternatives then as
  there is today. There is new data that is causing me to
  reconsider not having a strong opinion on the topic.

* I don't find it useful to nitpick every last thing about a
  solution that I find concerning, especially when attempting
  to build bridges. There is a certain point I'll stop
  raising concerns because I can live with a potential
  solution, even if I disagree with the value or the
  potential danger posed by the solution. This comes from an
  assumption that I might be wrong and a diverse ecosystem,
  as long as there isn't a time bomb in the ecosystem, is a
  healthy thing.

* I can only argue with folks so much. I don't actually enjoy
  doing it... it's draining. So, there is pain to gain ratio
  that needs to be hit for me to engage... which is true for
  most folks in this group, I imagine.

To be clear, I'm not arguing against Service Endpoints... they're great,
we should have them! I'm arguing against Service Endpoints *in DID
Documents*... and am suggesting that it's an anti-pattern. I'm happy to
lose that argument as long as we came to consensus as a group knowing
what the alternatives are.

-- 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 Saturday, 29 August 2020 16:42:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 29 August 2020 16:42:27 UTC