search

w3c / did-resolution

RELEASED DRAFT: Decentralized Identifier Resolution (DID Resolution) 0.2 Specification
https://w3c.github.io/did-resolution/
Other
14 stars 9 forks source link

[High-Level Use Case Documents] List of high-level use case documents that guide/drive the `did-url` use cases for the `did-url` grammar #34

Open mwherman2000 opened 5 years ago

mwherman2000 commented 5 years ago

For example, the "filter" syntax in the feature-discovery 1.0 HIPE (https://github.com/dhh1128/indy-hipe/blob/9c7722d208cfe0a336cb67a626cbbb192ae73f8c/text/feature-discovery/README.md) per the following discussion in https://chat.hyperledger.org/channel/indy-agent ... apologies in advance for the screenshot...

image

This will become another did-url use case in https://github.com/w3c-ccg/did-resolution/issues/32 (use case number 18 or greater).

mwherman2000 commented 5 years ago

This is actually a very interesting use case where the did-url grammar is deeply and implicitly embedded inside a separate set of specifications.

peacekeeper commented 5 years ago

Michael, if this issue is about making sure that Indy supports did-url syntax or DID Resolution correctly, then this really doesn't belong here. We hope that there will be many implementations of DIDs, and we don't want to cover implementation-specific issues here on the spec level. So I'm closing this.

If you think there's an actual issue or proposal for the spec itself here, then please re-open and clarify.

mwherman2000 commented 5 years ago

Yes @peacekeeper there is a specific did-url use case here that needs to be tracked until it is resolved. Re-open this and leave open until I can confirm it has been resolved.

If you think there's an actual issue or proposal for the spec itself here, then please re-open and clarify.

I don't appreciate this tactic that yourself, @rhiaro and @manu use all of the time of closing issues without validating that anything has been resolved. There is no way for me to "re-open" an issue - it's a #redherring to imply that I can.

There's about a dozen issues in https://github.com/w3c-ccg/did-spec/issues where @rhiaro done the same thing: closed the issue without resolving the defect. @rhiaro and @manu has refused to answer how these closed but unresolved issues are being tracked. For example, ...

peacekeeper commented 5 years ago

Michael, apologies.. First of all, I didn't know that you can't re-open the issue. I thought the original creator can do this, but now I learned that only people with write access to a repo can re-open closed issues.

But I'm sorry I still don't understand how your issue is relevant to the DID (Resolution) spec. It feels like something Indy-specific. I suggest you 1. either clarify here on this issue how this is relevant to the CCG specs (then I'd be happy to re-open it), or 2. open a new issue with such clarification.

mwherman2000 commented 5 years ago

No @peacekeeper , you need to right the wrong you have created and then ask for clarification. I'm not accepting this kind of behavior any more.

This is an example of exactly the kind of cliquish behavior being practiced by people with centralized power that is talked about in Credentials Community Group 2018 End of Year Survey Results.

image

CC: @rhiaro @manu @talltree

peacekeeper commented 5 years ago

I just re-opened the issue (like I said, I thought you'd be able to do that). I'm also sorry if there's any appearance of cliquish or insular behavior, this is certainly not the intention.

But please clarify how this issue is relevant to the DID Resolution spec, otherwise I will close it again. "Making sure that did-url grammar changes are propagated to Indy" probably belongs into the Hyperledger Indy JIRA and the Indy roadmap, but not here.

talltree commented 5 years ago

Michael, I agree with Markus here. The open standards work on CCG must be implementation-independent. As much as some of us on the CCG are involved with a specific open source implementation such as Hyperledger Indy, it does not belong in our work on open standards here.

On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 7:07 AM Markus Sabadello notifications@github.com wrote:

I just re-opened the issue (like I said, I thought you'd be able to do that). I'm also sorry if there's any appearance of cliquish or insular behavior, this is certainly not the intention.

But please clarify how this issue is relevant to the DID Resolution spec, otherwise I will close it again. "Making sure that did-url grammar changes are propagated to Indy" probably belongs into the Hyperledger Indy JIRA and the Indy roadmap, but not here.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/w3c-ccg/did-resolution/issues/34#issuecomment-474844681, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADLkTeBxWx9F6TBZJAEm2nW6G3_gU-6dks5vYkCngaJpZM4b9tK4 .

mwherman2000 commented 5 years ago

Michael, I agree with Markus here. The open standards work on CCG must be implementation-independent. As much as some of us on the CCG are involved with a specific open source implementation such as Hyperledger Indy, it does not belong in our work on open standards here. … On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 7:07 AM Markus Sabadello @.**> wrote: I just re-opened the issue (like I said, I thought you'd be able to do that). I'm also sorry if there's any appearance of cliquish or insular behavior, this is certainly not the intention. But please clarify how this issue is relevant to the DID Resolution spec, otherwise I will close it again. "Making sure that did-url grammar changes are propagated to Indy"* probably belongs into the Hyperledger Indy JIRA and the Indy roadmap, but not here. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#34 (comment)>, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADLkTeBxWx9F6TBZJAEm2nW6G3_gU-6dks5vYkCngaJpZM4b9tK4 .

@talltree Drummond, that's not the issue we're dealing with at the moment. Re-read the last couple comments. What you and Markus have added to this issue is no justification for unilaterally exercising one's power to close an issue. If you don't understand an issue, you need ask for clarification ...not shoot first, ask questions later.

peacekeeper commented 5 years ago

@mwherman2000 I already apologized for closing the issue so fast.. Once again: I thought you could simply re-open it if needed. Let's please not waste any more time on such a small misunderstanding.

Instead let's be constructive and try to figure out what to do with the actual issue.

mwherman2000 commented 5 years ago

High-level use case documents that have been selected to drive the lower-level did-url use cases:

mwherman2000 commented 5 years ago