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

Should DID syntax allow an empty "method-specific-id"? #34

brentzundel opened this issue Sep 23, 2019 · 1 comment


Copy link

@brentzundel brentzundel commented Sep 23, 2019


This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@peacekeeper peacekeeper commented Oct 23, 2019

I've been thinking about this for a while and I now have a slight preference, but I'd like to share some considerations first.

What is the DID subject in the case of an empty method-specific identifier? The answer that was given in the past was that the DID identifies the DID method or DID registry itself. But then, what does it mean...

  • to prove control of this DID in a DID Auth interaction?
  • to discover means for trustable interaction (services and keys) with this DID subject?
  • to have a VC that is issued by this DID?
  • to execute the CRUD operations on this DID?

I admit that some of the above sounds intriguing and could make sense. But on the other hand, an empty method-specific identifier feels a bit like a special case that is quite different from what DIDs have been designed for.

What I'd like to avoid is allowing this merely for being able to discover metadata about a DID resolver, or for some kind of general-purpose query mechanism to the DID registry. Those things should be handled differently, not by piggybacking on DID syntax and DID resolution. Instead, the question we need to answer here is "does it make sense for the DID registry to be considered a DID subject itself".


Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
None yet
3 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.