DID resolution specification

[kimdhamilton]

This needs to be done with coordination with DIF.

An was opened against the DID spec regarding DID document versioning. The CCG decided (todo: link to minutes when available) that this concept belongs in the methods specs, but should also be addressed across method specs for interoperability. For example, not all method specs will support a version number, but those that do should be able to align.

w3c-ccg/did-spec#64

This brings up the general question of method spec metadata alignment.

We propose a specification for the DID resolver; since the implementation is being worked on by DIF, we will coordinate with them

[kimdhamilton]

/cc: @peacekeeper

[peacekeeper]

+1 to creating a DID resolver specification, I'd love to work with @dmitrizagidulin and others on this. From a logistics point of view, to get started, would it be as simple as creating a new repo in the CCG? @pelle may also be interested since he implemented a JS resolver, and I know that in the BTCR hackathons there were also some discussions e.g. about how to include resolver metadata.

The DIF resolver has a few wiki pages e.g. here and here, but those are not in great shape.

[msporny]

From a logistics point of view, to get started, would it be as simple as creating a new repo in the CCG?

Yes, it would be that simple.

We need to check with @csuwildcat to make sure we're not stomping on any toes here. The understanding is that CCG works on specs, and DIF works on implementations... so the DID Resolver spec would be a CCG work item, while the development on DID Resolvers continues at DIF. @csuwildcat, does that work for you?

[peacekeeper]

@dmitrizagidulin and I had a call and we created a new repo for this: https://w3c-ccg.github.io/did-resolution/

[msporny]

Making sure that @csuwildcat saw what @peacekeeper and @dmitrizagidulin are working on. I'm trying to make sure that no one gets surprised by how all this work is progressing.

[csuwildcat]

I don't have any issue with the actual SDO specs being done in W3C, as DIF does not intend to be the end body for doing SDO spec formalization and passage. I would still like DIF to remain a center of gravity for development of implementations and engineering deliverables, if that makes sense to the folks on the thread.

[ChristopherA]

@peacekeeper, @csuwildcat:  can you talk about the status of this work item at the next CCG meeting (Dec 4th)? Is the CCG repo current? We'd like to report about it at W3C Strong Auth Workshop, as supporting multi-DID is a frequent question.

@jandrieu: Did we follow our "how to add a CGG work item" item work process here? I think it is fine, but don't recall that it was specifically approved.

@kimdhamilton: can you make sure that the repo is added to workitems and that we have CODEOWNERS for it?

[peacekeeper]

Yes happy to talk about it at the next meeting. The did-resolution repo is limited at the moment, but @dmitrizagidulin and I wanted to work on more content soon. I know that @mitfik and @awoie and probably others are also interested. I have some more material on DID Resolution: A RWoT7 topic paper, and an SSIMeetup webinar.

[csuwildcat]

Markus is the guy, so I will defer to him; I'll still jump on the call to provide any relevant detail I can.

…

On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 11:36 AM Christopher Allen ***@***.***> wrote: @peacekeeper <https://github.com/peacekeeper>, @csuwildcat <https://github.com/csuwildcat>: can you talk about the status of this work item at the next CCG meeting (Dec 4th)? Is the CCG repo current? We'd like to report about it at W3C Strong Auth Workshop, as supporting multi-DID is a frequent question. @jandrieu <https://github.com/jandrieu>: Did we follow our "how to add a CGG work item" item work process here? I think it is fine, but don't recall that it was specifically approved. @kimdhamilton <https://github.com/kimdhamilton>: can you make sure that the repo is added to workitems and that we have CODEOWNERS for it? — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#20 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAICyjfxzEPyZrRXx9BLDI5cdNBC3WfAks5u0YjOgaJpZM4UAey_> .

[kimdhamilton]

Here's the information needed to officially propose:

• Draft: https://w3c-ccg.github.io/did-resolution/
• Owner: @peacekeeper (?)
• Sponsors:
  • Confirmed: @dmitrizagidulin @kimdhamilton @awoie
  • TBD: @mitfik

TODO @kimdhamilton: related and included in scope is DID test suites, so we'll need a related repo. Is this a separate work item?

[awoie]

Here's the information needed to officially propose:

• Draft: https://w3c-ccg.github.io/did-resolution/

• Owner: @peacekeeper (?)

• Sponsors:

  • Confirmed: @dmitrizagidulin @kimdhamilton
  • TBD: @mitfik @awoie

TODO @kimdhamilton: related and included in scope is DID test suites, so we'll need a related repo. Is this a separate work item?

@kimdhamilton @peacekeeper Yes, I am also interested to be involved in the spec.

[kimdhamilton]

setup complete