What level of interoperability do we have if an html page contains a link with a scheme unknown to the browser?
Why should DIDs be expected to have a greater level of interoperability?
Am I missing something?
Thanks
--
Arnaud Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member - Open Technologies - IBM
________________________________
From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2023 2:50:03 PM
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 <public-did-wg@w3.org>; achille.zappa@insight-centre.org <achille.zappa@insight-centre.org>; phil.archer@gs1.org <phil.archer@gs1.org>; j-yoshii@kodansha.co.jp <j-yoshii@kodansha.co.jp>; steve.cole@merchantadvisorygroup.org <steve.cole@merchantadvisorygroup.org>; msporny@digitalbazaar.com <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>; charlesl@benetech.org <charlesl@benetech.org>; brent.zundel@gendigital.com <brent.zundel@gendigital.com>; edwardguild@geotab.com <edwardguild@geotab.com>; hyojin22.song@lge.com <hyojin22.song@lge.com>; Raphael.Troncy@eurecom.fr <Raphael.Troncy@eurecom.fr>; orie@transmute.industries <orie@transmute.industries>; mprorock@mesur.io <mprorock@mesur.io>; tsiegman@wiley.com <tsiegman@wiley.com>; chris.needham@bbc.co.uk <chris.needham@bbc.co.uk>; Fabien.Gandon@inria.fr <Fabien.Gandon@inria.fr>; mashbean@moda.gov.tw <mashbean@moda.gov.tw>; christian.liebel@thinktecture.com <christian.liebel@thinktecture.com>; dudley.collinson@uac.edu.au <dudley.collinson@uac.edu.au>; wangyf@sziit.edu.cn <wangyf@sziit.edu.cn>; Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>; hober@apple.com <hober@apple.com>; joe@legreq.com <joe@legreq.com>; tantek@cs.stanford.edu <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>; elena@holopin.io <elena@holopin.io>; w3c@rgrant.org <w3c@rgrant.org>; Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>; Team Archive <w3t-archive@w3.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: New proposal for the DID WG charter
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