OR13
commented
2 years ago @msporny this issue was raised to address your original request here:
https://github.com/w3c/did-spec-registries/pull/368#discussion_r750274007
I think the question here is "Who is ultimately responsible for the DID Method?" -- there should be ONE point of contact. The email could be "erc725@danubetech.com" (which will forward emails on to all of the contact names).
peacekeeper
Originally posted by @OR13 in https://github.com/w3c/did-spec-registries/pull/373#pullrequestreview-808625421
I believe the above is an assertion without a basis, thus far. As @peacekeeper noted elsewhere, this should be raised and resolved as an issue, before it is applied to new or existing registrations. I've not seen a similar issue raised by anyone else so here it may be...
My own quick two cents
It is not always easy to set up a distribution/role email address, which has been suggested as the means by which to put a single contact address into the DID method registration.
Even when possible, I do not think that such a role address would resolve the issue of none of those listed taking the action required when sending an action request to multiple recipients; a distribution address just adds at least one layer of MTA between the MUAs of the sender and recipient(s).
Listing multiple contact names, addresses, etc., is typically the easiest way to avoid the need for heavy recovery methods when the single listed contact is unexpectedly no longer reachable by their listed methods (new job, retirement, incapacitation, etc.), and having been burned by such recovery methods in the past, I think avoiding the need for such is worthwhile.
If a contactName value can hold only one entity, then we should allow for multiple contactName values. In any case, it seems we need to explicitly enumerate cardinality limits of the various fields being used for method (and other) registrations in the DID Registries.