- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Sat, 29 May 2021 16:20:07 -0400
- To: Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>, public-did-wg@w3.org
On 5/29/21 4:06 PM, Dave Longley wrote: > Should these be marked at-risk for CR2 in case they don't get implemented? > I'd like us to be careful to avoid CR3. We already have an at risk marker for the entire Resolution section, so I think we're covered there: https://w3c.github.io/did-core/#resolution > Should these or the JSON section be marked at-risk to prevent a potential > CR3 (and charter extension) should the basis for accepting these without > independent implementations be rejected for any reason? It doesn't hurt to put in an issue marker to that effect. In the very worst case, we just remove the text after a WG resolution is made that the Director accepts. > It seems we should be careful here. We should probably mark anything that > didn't get implementation support in CR1 as at-risk in CR2 -- even if the > WG is able to develop acceptance criteria on some other basis post CR2. Yes, modulo your comment about the JSON section, that's the plan. I'll put an at risk marker in the JSON section to just make sure we're covering our bases. The group can make a decision on it during the next call. -- 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 May 2021 20:20:26 UTC