Open mwherman2000 opened 5 years ago
Thanks for your feedback. As I noted in https://github.com/w3c-ccg/did-resolution/issues/32, my initial reaction is that I think it's important to have a clean separation between DID (URL) syntax, and the operations that can be performed on them, just like e.g. the HTTP operations (GET, POST, PUT, etc.) are not part of an HTTP URL, but rather part of a protocol that operates on HTTP URLs. But I'd like to talk to you to understand better your rationale.
@peacekeeper I've separated the proposed DID URL syntax for each use case from the HTTP bindings in https://github.com/w3c-ccg/did-resolution/issues/32 ...although they remain closed related ...as one would (hopefully) expect. There is no need to have multiple syntaxes/languages for performing the same operations ...especially for simple operations like dereferencing.
Reference: https://github.com/WebOfTrustInfo/rwot8-barcelona/blob/master/topics-and-advance-readings/Universal-DID-Operations.md
@peacekeeper I've documented several DID resolution use cases (and their proposed HTTP bindings) here: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/did-resolution/issues/32
Issues
I believe we should strive to keep the DID Document algebra as concise as possible.
method
andoptions
parameters for thecreate()
method should be simply encoded into a singledid
parameter IMO. Let's not create additional, more complex syntax where it is not necessary. See https://github.com/w3c-ccg/did-resolution/issues/32#issuecomment-466593543