W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-did-wg@w3.org > June 2021

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

From: Oliver Terbu <oliver.terbu@mesh.xyz>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2021 10:45:25 +0200
Message-ID: <CABEPdrD0Anw0Sfw-Ev5HjsZ9xcFaKqMYe3vsw_JiU589i-6ZQw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Markus Sabadello <markus@danubetech.com>
Cc: W3C DID Working Group <public-did-wg@w3.org>
`nextUpdate` and `nextVersionId` should be supported at least by did:3 and
did:ethr. What is missing?

On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 9:30 AM Markus Sabadello <markus@danubetech.com>
wrote:

> I don't think it's true that we are lacking enough implementations for
> "deactivated":
>
>
> https://github.com/w3c/did-test-suite/blob/main/packages/did-core-test-server/suites/implementations/universal-resolver-did-btcr.json
>
> https://github.com/w3c/did-test-suite/blob/main/packages/did-core-test-server/suites/implementations/resolver-did-ion.json
>
> https://github.com/w3c/did-test-suite/blob/main/packages/did-core-test-server/suites/implementations/resolver-did-orb.json
>
> Same for "nextUpdate" and "nextVersionId" I think.
>
> Maybe the test suite isn't counting some implemented features correctly?
>
> Markus
>
> On 27.06.21 21:57, Manu Sporny wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Our latest implementation report for DID Core is available here:
> >
> > https://w3c.github.io/did-test-suite/#spec-statement-summary
> >
> > 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
> >
>
>
Received on Monday, 28 June 2021 08:45:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 28 June 2021 08:45:50 UTC