Re: New proposal for the DID WG charter

On Wed, Nov 1, 2023 at 6:21 AM Daniel Hardman <daniel.hardman@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is why I like Markus's proposal. It feels to me like it's doing some concrete and useful things about interoperability, but it's patient and realistic rather than overreaching. I think that's a good place to be, at the current maturity of the technology.

I agree with Daniel.

I was mid-draft driving at the same points as Daniel, but less eloquently. :)

Jeffrey, there is one thing that continues to feel like a mismatch in
expectations. There seems to be this vein of "Everyone in the
ecosystem must be able to resolve any DID" in your commentary? I don't
think we ever intended that to be the case.

The expectation, IMHO, is that DID Resolution is closer to whether or
not your application supports a particular URL scheme. Most everyone
supports "https://", but not everyone supports "ftp://" or "git://" or
"ipfs://"... and that's perfectly fine and is how I was expecting
everyone thought about DID Resolution, but perhaps that's one of the
places where the disconnect is?

All this to say, +1 to Markus' proposal as well. Thank you for so
eloquently articulating the state of where we are  and what a
reasonable and patient next step should be, Daniel.

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
https://www.digitalbazaar.com/

Received on Wednesday, 1 November 2023 14:32:38 UTC