Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

chore(ref-imp): add controller back into verification methods #1009

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 21, 2021

Conversation

isaacJChen
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@@ -18,6 +18,7 @@
"verificationMethod": [
{
"id": "#publicKeyModel1Id",
"controller": "",
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Controller should not be an empty string. Prefer to omit property rather than have an empty string.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It has to be there according to did-core spec
image

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Section 3.1 ABNF doesn't seem to allow for an empty string. What rule are we applying to allow for this case?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@isaacJChen isaacJChen Jan 21, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We have a base in @context, which fills it in with JSON-LD

image

Copy link
Collaborator

@troyronda troyronda Jan 21, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I see.

Note: personally, I think this style makes the resolution result less clear to the human reader (and also to simpler processors.)

Copy link
Contributor Author

@isaacJChen isaacJChen Jan 21, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ya, I agree. I removed it in my last PR based on WG discussion results, but @OR13 caught that it's not spec compliant. We can further discuss it if we want the plain DID in there since I believe that's what OR13 prefers as well. Having it there as empty string at least is spec compliant and was the previous state so I decided to revert it. Feel free to bring this up in the next WG meeting though :)

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@troyronda, this is a follow up PR for discussion that occurred in #1006, thus @sandrask is aware of this change and I believe we have consensus, thus I am approving this PR to unblock.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@thehenrytsai I have opened a followup #1010 as I do not think using an empty string is the best outcome.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants