search

decentralized-identity / papers

Notes, ideas, and write-ups from DIF members and collaborators
Apache License 2.0
40 stars 7 forks source link

[SIOP] did_comm claim not defined #25

Closed selfissued closed 5 years ago

selfissued commented 5 years ago

The spec uses the "did_comm" claim in an example and says that it registers it, but the spec does not define it.

selfissued commented 5 years ago

Also, I thought that we'd decided to carry the DID in a "did" claim. The example puts the DID value in a "did" parameter of the "did_comm" claim. The example also contains a "did_doc" value without saying what this is, when it would be included, and what the validation rules for it are.

awoie commented 5 years ago

Thank you for calling that out. We will address the issue by using a did and an optional did_doc claim. The did_doc is needed for some vendors, e.g., for those who implement a did:peer approach.