Currently the "id:" = "URI" is described as a unique value for the claim that you can index, but it is also a place you can check to see if that specific claim is revoked.
However, there are cases (in particular did:btc), the issuer id can be revoked as a whole and all the claims from that issuer, but not individual claims issued by that issuer.
I'm not sure about using the id for double duty like this. Instead, I suspect that we should do is have a specific revocation check service tag rather than coercing both functions into id.
Another argument for a separate tag for this is that revocation is complicated. Is the issuer saying the claim valid at some point in the past but is now is not true, or that it made a mistake and it was never true? or that the issuer itself is invalid?
I also think it is possible what should happen if you try to resolve the id, it should just return the claim, which may be UPDATED with new expiration dates.
Currently the
"id:" = "URI"is described as a unique value for the claim that you can index, but it is also a place you can check to see if that specific claim is revoked.However, there are cases (in particular did:btc), the issuer id can be revoked as a whole and all the claims from that issuer, but not individual claims issued by that issuer.
I'm not sure about using the id for double duty like this. Instead, I suspect that we should do is have a specific revocation check service tag rather than coercing both functions into id.
Another argument for a separate tag for this is that revocation is complicated. Is the issuer saying the claim valid at some point in the past but is now is not true, or that it made a mistake and it was never true? or that the issuer itself is invalid?
I also think it is possible what should happen if you try to resolve the id, it should just return the claim, which may be UPDATED with new expiration dates.