Re: Thinking about Webfinger

Johannes,
Okay. I understand why people don't like content-negotiation, even if it is
explicitly mentioned in the WebFinger RFC. But, can you explain what, if
anything, is wrong with:

   - Using WebFinger to resolve did:* URIs, and
   - Returning a did document, or a link to one, as either a property or
   link in a JRD response?

Why isn't the existing WebFinger specification sufficient to allow useful
lookup of did documents?

I'm thinking that:

> https://example.com/.well-known/webfinger?resource=
> "did:web:w3c-ccg.github.io:user:alice"

might return either:

1. A link to a did document:

> {
>   "subject": "did:web:example.com:user:alice",
>   "links": [
>     {
>       "rel": "http://example.com/rel/did-doc",
>       "href": "https://example.com/user/alice/did.json"
>     }
>   ]
> }

(Note: If this was commonly used, someone might want to register the
appropriate rel type with IANA. But, that's not necessary.)

or,
2. A did document as a JRD property:

> {
>   "subject": "did:web:example.com:user:alice",
>   "properties": {
>     "http://example.com/did-doc": {
>       "@context": [
>         "https://www.w3.org/ns/did/v1",
>         "https://w3id.org/security/suites/jws-2020/v1"
>       ],
>       "id": "did:web:example.com:user:alice",
>       "verificationMethod": []
>     }
>   }
> }

(Note: If this was commonly used, someone might want to register an
appropriate property type with IANA. But, that's not necessary.)

Is there some reason why either of these would not be useful and
appropriate?

bob wyman