Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Oct 29, 2019. It is now read-only.

DID Method discovery mechanism requirement #83

Closed
msporny opened this issue May 14, 2018 · 5 comments
Closed

DID Method discovery mechanism requirement #83

msporny opened this issue May 14, 2018 · 5 comments
Assignees
Labels
discuss Wider discussion in an issue or meeting required before merging

Comments

@msporny
Copy link
Contributor

msporny commented May 14, 2018

@gklyne wrote:

maybe every DID service should have an associated DID document, which among other things connects the method name to its service access point(s), complete with cryptographic verification content. This document could in turn be served by any and/or all DID services. In this respect, the various DID services might function like multiple DNS root servers, and starting from any one of them, the others are discoverable. This is not a thought-out proposal, and is probably shot through with holes, but I offer it for consideration (or not!).

@msporny msporny self-assigned this May 14, 2018
@msporny
Copy link
Contributor Author

msporny commented May 14, 2018

We had considered doing this a while ago. If I remember the conversation correctly, DID Resolver implementers pushed back and would rather have it in code than dereference a document to discover the DID methods. The latter increases implementation burden, may create potential attack vectors and it doesn't help the DID Resolver if there is no known way to talk w/ the DID Method network.

We could always make the registry referenced above machine-readable, but it's not clear it would be beneficial as a whole because:

  • It increases implementation burden,
  • It possibly creates a new attack vector (from a security standpoint - e.g. providing a document that contains spam/injection attacks),
  • It enables DID Methods to censure other DID Methods by not listing them
  • There are no "service access points" since these are decentralized networks. You connect to the node closest to you, or the one you trust the most, or some other metric that's important to you... and then bootstrap into the network from there.

@gklyne
Copy link

gklyne commented May 14, 2018

Ack. It was just a thought :)

Close?

@w3c-ccg w3c-ccg deleted a comment from gklyne May 14, 2018
@msporny
Copy link
Contributor Author

msporny commented May 14, 2018

Close?

Let's let this hang out there for a few weeks to get other feedback before closing. It is possible that I missed something.

@rhiaro rhiaro added the discuss Wider discussion in an issue or meeting required before merging label Jan 25, 2019
@peacekeeper
Copy link
Member

Related to w3c/did-resolution#26 and #198.

@rhiaro rhiaro added elsewhere Belongs on a different spec and removed discuss Wider discussion in an issue or meeting required before merging labels Aug 16, 2019
@msporny msporny added discuss Wider discussion in an issue or meeting required before merging and removed elsewhere Belongs on a different spec labels Sep 20, 2019
@jandrieu
Copy link
Contributor

Closing as we have adopted this issue in the new DIDWG repo.

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
discuss Wider discussion in an issue or meeting required before merging
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants