Closed jandrieu closed 2 years ago
@jandrieu I can safely say this is the most comprehensive registration process for an SDO-based registry that I have seen. It is complex enough to be somewhat daunting, however, given the complexity of the subject matter, your write up is clear enough that IMHO any reasonably motivated contributor should be able to follow it. Due to the detail involved, I don't have any other comments to offer other than I believe this registry would be a real asset to the DID community.
Good work!
The issue was discussed in a meeting on 2021-08-31
The issue was discussed in a meeting on 2021-09-07
The issue was discussed in a meeting on 2021-09-14
List of resolutions:
- Wouldn't it be cleaner if all current entries in §3 followed exactly the same structure (in terms of subtitles) as the entries listed in §2.2? This is mostly done, but the name, id, and version, are never made explicit in §3 (I realize those items are all trivially there, but it would probably be better to make it 100% explicit).
Moved to issue #56
- "Each criteria must be explicitly, uniquely, and persistently identified using incremental numbers. New criteria should use the next available increment based on the highest numbered identifier in the current publication." which is fine, but we may create a race condition, so it should be made clear that the editors of the registry may have to adapt those numbers during the registration process itself.
The section on 2.3 Identifiers says
Editors will manage any sequencing errors when accepting PRs.
Does this address your suggestion, Ivan? Or is there another place in the document we should/could highlight that point better?
- I would think that §3.9 should either be removed or, rather, refer to the registration process.
Agreed. I added a new issue to track this. We should also get rid of the "additional criteria" section or at least update it to fit with the registry.
- Shouldn't something be said, in §2, who maintains the registry? Who has the decision power, at the end of the day, on whether a submission abides to the rules? I presume it is, officially, the maintainer of the DID Spec proper, ie, the DID WG or, in the absence thereof, the W3C Team, but that has to be made more explicit imho.
Hmmm. We do say that at the end of Section 2, but it's not well highlighted. I'll break that out into its own section, 2.6.
@dhh1128 This should be ready to go. I've created a few new issues to track some good suggestions that I'd like to get in later, but those are all editorial and shouldn't hold up this merge.
Let me know if you have any questions.
This outlines a set of proposed rules for managing the DID Method Rubric as a registry.
Preview | Diff