RE: Current status of DID Core implementations (June 2021)

I am going to do a PR to the Identity Hubs spec this week that uses the service/relativeRef params, but there won't be an implementation for many months. This is a desired set of props from our end (MSFT), but I don't know how best to prove it in the immediate term.

- Daniel

From: Kyle Den Hartog <kyle.denhartog@mattr.global>
Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2021 4:31 PM
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>; W3C DID Working Group <public-did-wg@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Current status of DID Core implementations (June 2021)

> #1: Are the hl, relativeRef, and service implementations
>    independent enough?

> Our numbers are looking good. We now have two method implementations for hl,
> relativeRef, and service -- although, by the same implementer (Mattr). We'll
> have to debate if that counts or not on the upcoming WG call. If there are two
> independent implementers at Mattr that created their did:web and did:sov
> implementations, then it should count. If not, there may still be a good
> argument to count these as two independent METHOD implementations.

Unfortunately, that's a functionality that is above our method abstraction and I was the only one to implement it from our team. I'd guess this would make it difficult to argue that it's two independent METHOD implementations if we stood on the merits of MATTR's implementation only. However, I did see that Orie has produced support for the relativeRef and service parameters though in this [1] implementation. I believe this would count as 2 independent METHOD implementations. One is from our teams implementation using did:sov and did:web and 1 from Orie using did:web. Could this cover for those two parameters at least?

[1]: https://github.com/w3c/did-test-suite/blob/main/packages/did-core-test-server/suites/implementations/dereferencer-web-transmute.json<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fw3c%2Fdid-test-suite%2Fblob%2Fmain%2Fpackages%2Fdid-core-test-server%2Fsuites%2Fimplementations%2Fdereferencer-web-transmute.json&data=04%7C01%7Cdaniel.buchner%40microsoft.com%7Cb19423d2ea4e4aad0dbb08d939c3c9c2%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637604335360833525%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=OFGlbuI3N0A5d36pJWreQJu73awlDanfRTdubGg0SQ4%3D&reserved=0>

Also as a side note, we've not implemented the hl parameter and I'm not seeing any other implementations that have submitted to the test suite for it yet. I'd be happy to throw together a quick implementation for it if one other person is also willing to as well in order to meet the two implementation guidelines.
-Kyle
________________________________
From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com<mailto:msporny@digitalbazaar.com>>
Sent: Monday, June 28, 2021 7:57 AM
To: W3C DID Working Group <public-did-wg@w3.org<mailto:public-did-wg@w3.org>>
Subject: Current status of DID Core implementations (June 2021)

Hi all,

Our latest implementation report for DID Core is available here:

https://w3c.github.io/did-test-suite/#spec-statement-summary<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fw3c.github.io%2Fdid-test-suite%2F%23spec-statement-summary&data=04%7C01%7Cdaniel.buchner%40microsoft.com%7Cb19423d2ea4e4aad0dbb08d939c3c9c2%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637604335360843482%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=O5fYE7SrSHxm70c67liODqQa%2B245D99HEWCEQhV2b4I%3D&reserved=0>

Here are the remaining items that the WG needs to discuss on the upcoming call:

#1: Are the hl, relativeRef, and service implementations
    independent enough?

Our numbers are looking good. We now have two method implementations for hl,
relativeRef, and service -- although, by the same implementer (Mattr). We'll
have to debate if that counts or not on the upcoming WG call. If there are two
independent implementers at Mattr that created their did:web and did:sov
implementations, then it should count. If not, there may still be a good
argument to count these as two independent METHOD implementations.

#2: Are we letting the JSON serialization keep
    unimplemented features?

The JSON serialization continues to lack implementations for datetime, double,
integer, and null. The WG has noted that they're going to keep those features
in the spec anyway in order to support the entire JSON data model.

#3: What are we going to do with deactivated, nextUpdate,
    and nextVersionId?

We are currently lacking implementation support for the following DID
Resolution features:

* deactivated
* nextUpdate
* nextVersionId

DID URL Dereferencing now has two independent implementations for most of the
features, but just barely.

Those are the three remaining items to discuss wrt. implementations, AFAIK.

-- manu

--
Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Fmanusporny%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cdaniel.buchner%40microsoft.com%7Cb19423d2ea4e4aad0dbb08d939c3c9c2%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637604335360843482%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=5ZQlqGBevKI%2BI8JVb4iFBx8aorw2vB1Po6wJk9Q3VZs%3D&reserved=0>
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
News: Digital Bazaar Announces New Case Studies (2021)
https://www.digitalbazaar.com/<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.digitalbazaar.com%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cdaniel.buchner%40microsoft.com%7Cb19423d2ea4e4aad0dbb08d939c3c9c2%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637604335360853437%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=Wxvsk75O9uYUHbv%2FkVDU4%2BMcaiLeA6UzjomL04FAYZ0%3D&reserved=0>