Re: New proposal for the DID WG charter

On 01/11/2023 11:34, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote:
> Since https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/did-core-pr/results 
> <https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/did-core-pr/results>, Chris and I 
> have been suggesting that DIDs should match URLs in standardizing some 
> schemes at the same time as standardizing the URL syntax. For DIDs, that 
> would likely be the ones that are already being used interoperably.
> 
> Then, like with URLs, when a client receives a method it doesn't 
> support, and its developers look up the definition in the registry 
> <https://www.w3.org/TR/did-spec-registries/>, they can look at the 
> standardization status to figure out how stable and vetted the method 
> is. This can inform their decision of whether to implement or ask the 
> sender to send something different.

Ah — this seems different from a standardised algorithm though? Reading 
the above, it feels like your concerns would be addressed by a registry 
(that would presumably do a bit more than the Note), essentially 
something IANA-style. Is that the case?

-- 
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 15:51:42 UTC