Consider removing Critera-26 Future Proofing

w3c / did-rubric

W3C Decentralized Characteristics Rubric v1.0

https://w3c.github.io/did-rubric/

Other

14 stars 16 forks source link

Consider removing Critera-26 Future Proofing #72

Open jandrieu opened 2 years ago

jandrieu commented 2 years ago

https://www.w3.org/TR/did-rubric/#criteria-26

I'm not sure there are any useful distinction here. I don't know of any system that can satisfy answer (A):

A. Any user of the system can easily upgrade their crypto at any time

Also, I'm not convinced the two examples are legit. did:ipid does need an implementation upgrade, as @dhh1128 mentions in the notes. did:peer doesn't define any particular hash algorithm, but all members of the peer would, in fact, have to update their implementations. So, while a peer group would be easier to update than an entire network like BTC or ETH, the code-free idea of answers A/B make no sense for any system we know of today.

I'm not sure this is a legitimate criteria.

rxgrant commented 2 years ago

adopting post-quantum crypto

This is a legitimate dimension to want a rubric for.

No code changes are needed, but the whole system needs to be reconfigured to allow new crypto.

I agree that this sounds very suspect for a useful distinction.

rxgrant commented 2 years ago

Some useful future-proofing questions:

is versioning addressed in the specification?
do the DID Method specification authors address post-quantum cryptography?
do the DID Method specification authors address hash function obsolescence?

dhh1128 commented 2 years ago

I don't have a strong opinion about this issue.

TallTed commented 2 years ago

It is entirely legitimate to recognize that xyz will be an area of concern going forward, and therefore that competing options (DID methods) should be evaluated (in part) according to their (planned) handling of that concern. This is so whether or not we have a good list of questions about that area of concern today, and especially whether or not we have a good list of answers to those questions.

I think the future-proofing section (as well as some other sections) of the rubric may well be thin, today -- some even to the point of having no immediate questions to be considered. Including those sections in the rubric will make it easier to fill them in appropriately in future, than if they are left out entirely (which omission some are likely to read as "this was judged unimportant or irrelevant").