Should there be a registry? Process to migrate to a W3C Registry?

[decentralgabe]

Please share your ideas.

[ChristopherA]

I would like to see that a method registry has multiple stages, of which the first as "provisional" is easiest to obtain, to the same standards as now: a) does not conflict with another method name, b) has one or more contacts, c)has publicly available a basic spec, and d) has a date this provisional expiration expires as inactive (I propose 2 years), but can be easily renewed. I believe the CCG can continue to maintain this.

Additional stages, would be managed by this working group at higher standard, and the first requirement is that they have a provisional registration. Additional requirements might the DID controller document meets some conformance testing, or another stage works with DID resolver conformance.

I don't know that these additional stages need to be formal "W3C Registries".

[jandrieu]

I'd prefer we call it a "Directory" but the new W3C process is probably the right direction for this work. I'm not convinced the W3C has "solved" how registries work, but we should opt-in and help make it work, IMO, rather than continue this as a NOTE.

The process section on Registry is https://www.w3.org/policies/process/20231103/#registries

[ChristopherA]

Should we refactor the different parts of this registry, in particular the DID method list, into different documents.

[ChristopherA]

Should the DID Resolution registry values be instead moved to the DID Resolution document?

[wip-abramson]

Echoing @iherman from the call yesterday, I am wondering what following the W3C registry process gets us.

I think @jandrieu makes a valid point, that it is a new process and trying to use it means we can help make it work for our needs.

However, I wonder about the optics given issue #567. This is not the official registry for DIDs. But might using the W3C formal process for registries give it a sense of being official?

[iherman]

However, I wonder about the optics given issue #567. This is not the official registry for DIDs. But might using the W3C formal process for registries give it a sense of being official?

I am afraid it may. Publishing a W3C registry means following an official process; whatever the content is, whatever the surrounding "story" is, it does convey the message of being very official.

[ChristopherA]

Are there others that agree with me that the DID Method Registry should have multiple stages? I have no problem with considering the higher stages having a more official process, but I have real reservations about submitting the bottom level "provisional" registration stage to a W3C official process.

[TallTed]

Are there others that agree with me that the DID Method Registry should have multiple stages?

We had the basis for multiple stages a while back. Consensus was that substantial additional work would be required to solidify the stage definitions, and add a lot to the administrative workload (at least, to keep track of transitions, especially on the back-end where the registrant might not be as responsive).

I have real reservations about submitting the bottom level "provisional" registration stage to a W3C official process

I believe the definitions of such stages (as with all aspects of a W3C registry definition) would be subject to normal W3C process rules, as these are considered closer to a REC-track than a NOTE-track document. As I understand things, handling stage transitions and such within the registries would not be subjected to the full W3C process. Which may relieve or intensify your reservations.