On Wed, Nov 1, 2023 at 8:51 AM Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com> wrote:
> 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?
>
The registry is already planned in
https://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://raw.githubusercontent.com/w3c/charter-drafts/did-wg-2023-team-proposal/2023/did-wg.html#scope,
and it's definitely a piece of the solution. As I wrote later in my email,
"If the registry included canonical https: resolver URLs for each method,
that would go partway there ..." It doesn't seem sufficient to have _only_
the registry with its links to specifications because someone reading the
registry won't have assurance that anybody has checked that the
specifications are sufficient to implement the method interoperably, are
unencumbered by patents, are stable, or any of the other things that get
checked while a specification makes its way through a standards process.
When Ralph overrode the DID-core formal objections in
https://www.w3.org/2022/06/DIDRecommendationDecision.html, he wrote "this
will permit them to focus next on the specification of recommended methods
... In its next chartered period the Working Group should address and
deliver proposed standard DID method(s)". Following that plan still seems
like the best way to proceed. I want to stay open to the possibility that
another path could give the same benefits as standardizing all of the
necessary components for using DIDs, but I haven't seen those benefits in
the proposal to just do Resolution.
Jeffrey