Add did:object Method specification #390
Conversation
mwherman2000
requested review from
kdenhartog,
mprorock,
msporny and
OR13
as code owners
|
Version 1.5.0 (https://github.com/mwherman2000/TrustedDigitalWeb/blob/master/specifications/did-methods/did-object-1-5-0.md) is virtually identical to version 1.0.0 and includes changes for all of the previous feedback. The 2 key changes include:
@kdenhartog I don't know what you would like fixed in the DID Document example: https://github.com/mwherman2000/TrustedDigitalWeb/blob/master/specifications/did-methods/did-object-1-5-0.md#example-2-trusted-digital-web-did-object-did-document ...vs. the example of the change that @mprorock provided for version 1.0.0 of the specification (https://github.com/mwherman2000/TrustedDigitalWeb/blob/master/specifications/did-methods/did-object-1-0-0.md#example-2-trusted-digital-web-did-object-did-document). The previous feedback on version 1.0.0 can be found here: #383 |
|
@mwherman2000, as an aside and while I appreciate the nod, please remove my name from the acknowledgements section as it could be interpreted as endorsement. I didn't do a thorough enough review of the specification to feel comfortable having my name associated with it (yet). That only myself and @mprorock show up makes it look like we're co-authors in some way. My level of comfort with being listed in the acknowledgements section might change in the future if I really dig into the DID Method and try to understand it at depth and provide a complete review. |
msporny
changed the title
Done. Changed the acknowledgement to very generic text: https://github.com/mwherman2000/TrustedDigitalWeb/blob/master/specifications/did-methods/did-object-1-5-0.md#7-acknowledgments |
It is a topic of active debate at present. All registrations are provisional at this moment in time (everyone is in the same boat). That is likely to change after a process to go beyond provisional has been settled upon by the next re-chartered DID WG. More discussion, if you want to see the gory details, in yesterdays meeting: https://www.w3.org/2019/did-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2021-12-14-did#section1 |
If its not part of the current public process, why was the concept of PROVISIONAL registration allowed to be introduced in the first place. Feels #cliquish. |
The DID Spec Registries document currently states:
How would you like that statement changed to address your concern?
I don't know if this is a generational thing, but hashtaging in this way can be viewed as a microaggression when the hashtag has a negative connotation. Being accused of cliquish behaviour is a suggestion that one is being exclusionary. It is a presumption of bad faith. Given that we've had issues with you in the past where Chairs have had to get involved to remind you of the CEPC, I don't want to go down that path again. Please assume good faith. We're all trying our best. We're not trying to exclude anyone on purpose. What would be productive is suggesting concrete text changes that would achieve consensus in the DID WG that we can put into the document to address your concern. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This meets all the requirements as set out which we've applied in the past so I'm approving. However as a side note I'd suggest you try and run an implementation of this method through the did-test-suite since I'm fairly certain it would fail some of the tests there.
|
We have approvals from all four registry maintainers, this will be merged after 7 days from the time the PR was raised if there are no objections. |
I was trying/hoping the 2 new methods would become a second new PR ...how do I do this? I had actually hoped I had stopped the creation of the new changes to let the first PR complete. Another option is to let all 3 be approved together. did:object is unchanged with the exception of 2 new references. Please advise? ..provide detailed steps. p.s. From a workload perspective, it makes sense to review all 3 together. There's lot of common boilerplate text. |
You need different checkouts or different branches for each change. Then go to the PR page and create a new PR for each one.
I think it's a cleaner process to review each method on its own. If one method is substantially similar to another, just note that for the reviewers. You could even note the differences. Or even just suggest people do something like this: diff -u <(curl -s https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mwherman2000/TrustedDigitalWeb/master/specifications/did-methods/did-object-1-5-0.md) <(curl -s https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mwherman2000/TrustedDigitalWeb/master/specifications/did-methods/did-bizproc-1-0-0.md)
diff -u <(curl -s https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mwherman2000/TrustedDigitalWeb/master/specifications/did-methods/did-object-1-5-0.md) <(curl -s https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mwherman2000/TrustedDigitalWeb/master/specifications/did-methods/did-bizdoc-1-0-0.md)
diff -u <(curl -s https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mwherman2000/TrustedDigitalWeb/master/specifications/did-methods/did-bizproc-1-0-0.md) <(curl -s https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mwherman2000/TrustedDigitalWeb/master/specifications/did-methods/did-bizdoc-1-0-0.md)(Maybe even append "| vim -R -" if you like some color diffs.) A couple notes:
|
|
@mwherman2000 this specification seems to use "publicKey", which is an outdated property in the DID Core data model. This has been replaced by "verificationMethod". And maybe use "publicKeyJwk" or "publicKeyMultibase" instead of "publicKeyHex"? Also, in the DID operations sections, perhaps use "Deactivate" instead of "Delete (Revoke)", this was also changed in DID Core a while ago. |
The DID Syntax should resolve only to a DID Document. If you resolve to anything other than a DID Document your method won't comply with the test suite. Only DID URLs can link to external DID Documents in the test suite as far as I'm aware. I highly suggest you try and test against the test suite because what you're proposing in the latest two methods will fail in the test suite. |
|
The API for all 3 DID Methods work with DID Documents ...they only return/work with DID Documents. This is the prescribed behavior per the DID-CORE specification.
To make any other assumptions is pure, unwarranted conjecture.
Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>
…________________________________
From: Kyle Den Hartog ***@***.***>
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2021 6:15:17 PM
To: w3c/did-spec-registries ***@***.***>
Cc: Michael Herman (Trusted Digital Web) ***@***.***>; Mention ***@***.***>
Subject: Re: [w3c/did-spec-registries] Add did:object Method specification (PR #390)
The 3 DID Method specifications differ in the following (obvious) sections:
* Purpose
* Method Name
* Identifier Format
* Examples
The differences are obvious and expected given the common outline/format used for each specification:
a. Purpose: ***@***.***/specifications/did-methods/did-bizdoc-1-0-0.md#purpose<https://github.com/mwherman2000/TrustedDigitalWeb/blob/master/specifications/did-methods/did-bizdoc-1-0-0.md?rgh-link-date=2021-12-20T03%3A08%3A54Z#purpose> b. Method Name: ***@***.***/specifications/did-methods/did-bizdoc-1-0-0.md#2-trusted-digital-web-business-document-identifier-method-name<https://github.com/mwherman2000/TrustedDigitalWeb/blob/master/specifications/did-methods/did-bizdoc-1-0-0.md?rgh-link-date=2021-12-20T03%3A08%3A54Z#2-trusted-digital-web-business-document-identifier-method-name> c. Identifier Format: ***@***.***/specifications/did-methods/did-bizdoc-1-0-0.md#3-trusted-digital-web-business-document-identifier-format<https://github.com/mwherman2000/TrustedDigitalWeb/blob/master/specifications/did-methods/did-bizdoc-1-0-0.md?rgh-link-date=2021-12-20T03%3A08%3A54Z#3-trusted-digital-web-business-document-identifier-format> d. Example 1: ***@***.***/specifications/did-methods/did-bizdoc-1-0-0.md#example-1-trusted-digital-web-business-document-schema-identifier<https://github.com/mwherman2000/TrustedDigitalWeb/blob/master/specifications/did-methods/did-bizdoc-1-0-0.md?rgh-link-date=2021-12-20T03%3A08%3A54Z#example-1-trusted-digital-web-business-document-schema-identifier> e. Example 2: ***@***.***/specifications/did-methods/did-bizdoc-1-0-0.md#example-2-trusted-digital-web-business-document-document-identifier<https://github.com/mwherman2000/TrustedDigitalWeb/blob/master/specifications/did-methods/did-bizdoc-1-0-0.md?rgh-link-date=2021-12-20T03%3A08%3A54Z#example-2-trusted-digital-web-business-document-document-identifier>
It is easiest/best to review and accept all 3 specifications at the same time.
The DID Syntax should resolve only to a DID Document. If you resolve to anything other than a DID Document your method won't comply with the test suite. I highly suggest you try and test against the test suite because what you're proposing in the latest two methods will fail in the test suite.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#390 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABORV2GIY2X2BVE2BSJAPX3UR7IKLANCNFSM5KDYYZ4A>.
Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS<https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675> or Android<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&referrer=utm_campaign%3Dnotification-email%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dgithub>.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>
|
|
So you're saying this
The change requests were purely about separating out the 3 methods. The other comments are just about trying to gain understanding of the method because based on the details in it so far it's unclear to me which DID URI resolves to the DID Document and I'm thinking it's not going to be interoperable which is why I'm suggesting you check the did test suite. There's nothing malicious going on here so no need to be defensive. I'm trying to help fill gaps just like I've done on many other methods. |
|
@kdenhartog I'm confirming that all of your examples return a DID Document if they are passed to a DID Resolution specification compliant resolver. According to the DID-CORE specification, that's the only thing they can/should/should resolve to. NOTE: did:bizdoc and did:bizproc have been removed. |
|
did:bizproc and did:bizdoc have been removed. |
All of these changes have been made and pushed. |
@msporny This change has been completed. Please approve. |
@kdenhartog Here's an example I worked up over the past couple days that will help explain how DID Identifiers, DID Documents, DID Agents, and DID Objects work together to help support the Fully Decentralized Object Framework... |
|
@msporny Happy New Year Manu, do you have any additional concerns/issues? I have a queue of method registration applications waiting to come through |
Nope, none. The PR was modified to only register a single DID Method, that DID Method has not received objections during the standard wait time period (even taking the holidays into account), multiple positive reviews, so merging now. |
|
Thk you to all the reviewers for helping to improve this DID method spec. We're breaking a lot of new ground ... there's a huge future ahead. |
DID Method Registration
As a DID method registrant, I have ensured that my DID method registration complies with the following statements:
contactEmailaddress [OPTIONAL].verifiableDataRegistryentry [OPTIONAL].