- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2023 09:50:03 -0400
- To: Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin@google.com>, Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>
- Cc: Markus Sabadello <markus@danubetech.com>, Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine@w3.org>, public-did-wg@w3.org, achille.zappa@insight-centre.org, phil.archer@gs1.org, j-yoshii@kodansha.co.jp, steve.cole@merchantadvisorygroup.org, msporny@digitalbazaar.com, charlesl@benetech.org, brent.zundel@gendigital.com, edwardguild@geotab.com, hyojin22.song@lge.com, Raphael.Troncy@eurecom.fr, orie@transmute.industries, mprorock@mesur.io, tsiegman@wiley.com, chris.needham@bbc.co.uk, Fabien.Gandon@inria.fr, mashbean@moda.gov.tw, christian.liebel@thinktecture.com, dudley.collinson@uac.edu.au, wangyf@sziit.edu.cn, lehors@us.ibm.com, hober@apple.com, joe@legreq.com, tantek@cs.stanford.edu, elena@holopin.io, w3c@rgrant.org, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, Team Archive <w3t-archive@w3.org>
Hi Jeffrey, On 31/10/2023 18:36, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote: > A concrete question I have is "if a client (or resolver) receives a did: > URL whose method it doesn't understand, what's it supposed to do?" I > think we can practically expect interoperability among non-standardized > DID methods if there's a standardized algorithm to answer that question. > If the answer is, instead, "you need to just know the URL to a resolver > that understands the method", it's hard for me to expect that software > from different vendors will tend to be able to reliably exchange did: URLs. Do you mind clarifying a bit what your expectations are here? It's not obvious to me that the standard answer for a DID you don't know how to resolve ought to be anything other than some equivalent of 406 Not Acceptable? The DID space is whittling down and I expect it to whittle down further. It's a bit like image formats: we haven't really figured out a way to have just one, once in a blue moon we introduce a new one, we don't have a wonderful way of managing unknown formats when they are introduced (some exist, but they're provided at a separate layer like HTML or HTTP). I would expect that we can get good enough interop from a similar arrangement. It won't be perfect, but it'll still be better than what we had pre-DID. > On Sun, Oct 29, 2023 at 3:08 PM Markus Sabadello > <markus@danubetech.com <mailto:markus@danubetech.com>> wrote: > - A resolver can indicate to clients which DID methods it supports This feels useful. > - A resolver can "forward" or "redirect" requests for > unsupported DID methods to other resolvers (the current DID > Resolution draft already mentions this) I'm a lot less certain about the forwarding part of this. DID resolution could leak information, and having a resolver opaquely decide to forward strikes me as undesirable. Responding with a see-other list of resolvers it believes can handle it (as a form of redirect) seems better. -- Robin Berjon (he/him) Governance & Standards at Protocol Labs https://berjon.com/ - https://bsky.app/profile/robin.berjon.com
Received on Wednesday, 1 November 2023 13:50:18 UTC