You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
How can we best provide unambiguous definitions and constraints on the Abstract Data Model such that it can be best used by implementers?
I have worked hard building out all aspects of the DID spec and found that CDDL (RFC 8610) is the most robust to solve this and I would like to propose it to concretely constrain the Abstract Data Model.
Some debate that should be discussed include:
is CDDL sufficiently expressive to cover all representations ( CBOR, JSON, JSON-LD, YAML)?
or should the CDDL be used for per-representation/per-MIME type basis?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
How can we best provide unambiguous definitions and constraints on the Abstract Data Model such that it can be best used by implementers?
I have worked hard building out all aspects of the DID spec and found that CDDL (RFC 8610) is the most robust to solve this and I would like to propose it to concretely constrain the Abstract Data Model.
Some debate that should be discussed include:
per-representation/per-MIME type
basis?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: