-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 94
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
Proving Control sections are wrong #583
Comments
PR #588 has been raised to mark the sections as wrong. We still need a PR to fix this issue. |
I agree the sections could be improved. They talk too much about signed DID documents. But there is also some useful content in there that shouldn't be removed. E.g. to state that 1. a signed DID document doesn't prove control of a DID, and 2. proving control of a DID requires DID resolution, those are two important points to mention. |
Paragraph 9.2.2 Proving Control of a Public Key might need to reviewed by getting inspirited by the Static Data Authentication (SDA) and the Dynamic Data Authentication (DDA) used in the payment industry and highlight maybe the differences with static and dynamic method used by the DID and described in the section. The ICAO (passport) scheme might be a good one too. |
The issue was discussed in a meeting on 2021-05-04
View the transcript7.1. Proving Control sections are wrongSee github issue #583. Brent Zundel: There has been a bit of conversation. Need a PR to fix issue. Manu Sporny: General statement: I triaged issue this past weekend, marked everything that was a CR comment. Marked anything ready for a PR as ready for PR.
Brent Zundel: If you haven't and always wanted to write a PR for a specification, we have a number of issues to choose from, and I encourage you to do so. |
PR #738 has been created to address this issue. This issue will be closed once that PR has been merged. |
The issue was discussed in a meeting on 2021-05-25
View the transcript3.7. Proving Control sections are wrongSee github issue #583. Manu Sporny: The PR is in and has been merged, and I am waiting for Amy to see if it addressed her concern Brent Zundel: There are currently 15 open PRs that are all editorial |
The proving control of DID docs and of public keys subsections in Security Considerations are inaccurate.
We need to fix these ASAP, but this can probably be done during CR as they are not normative.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: