Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: did:did - DID Identity DID (DID) DID method

Improvement request:

While there may be no delete operation in the spec, it might be helpful to know that a did:did is not in use - I propose an extensible custom operation called "Done", that denotes intentional retirement of identifier.   Ideally that operation should either return the strings "good" or "bad" so that verifiers could know determine whether a given did:did DID done(good) or whether that did:did DID done(bad).

Cheers!

________________________________
From: Kim Hamilton <kimdhamilton@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, April 2, 2021 9:45 AM
To: Markus Sabadello <markus@danubetech.com>
Cc: public-did-wg@w3.org <public-did-wg@w3.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: did:did - DID Identity DID (DID) DID method

Bug reports:
1. As a user, I would expect the “identity” method to be idempotent
2. As another user, I would expect undid and did to commute, which is not necessarily the case at the moment

We’re getting there guys, keep pushing!

On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 8:16 AM Markus Sabadello <markus@danubetech.com<mailto:markus@danubetech.com>> wrote:
Okay.. So this is just for fun, or could it actually serve a concrete
purpose (even if it's some edge case)?

I'd maybe add a sentence to the spec to clarify this... It looks cool :)
But the motivation wasn't quite clear to me...

Markus

On 02.04.21 15:47, Charles E. Lehner wrote:
> For further reference - this was aimed at following this IETF tradition:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Fools%27_Day_RFC<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FApril_Fools%2527_Day_RFC&data=04%7C01%7Cpamela.dingle%40microsoft.com%7Cc2c7aa27c7f4450fca1a08d8f5f6d89f%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637529787870948811%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=E6nfhXlYoP2s2TrqiBlZOVe2zGrLu4d5wLgEqxRYQpo%3D&reserved=0>
>