Registry Updates #132
Registry Updates #132
Conversation
| @@ -16,7 +15,6 @@ | |||
| "RsaVerificationKey2018": "sec:RsaVerificationKey2018", | |||
| "SchnorrSecp256k1VerificationKey2019": "sec:SchnorrSecp256k1VerificationKey2019", | |||
| "X25519KeyAgreementKey2019": "sec:X25519KeyAgreementKey2019", | |||
| "ServiceEndpointProxyService": "didv:ServiceEndpointProxyService", | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is something that's important to Veres One, and I expect, other DID Methods once people fully grasp GDPR and how it impacts DID Method implementers. We're waiting for the Service Endpoint discussion to settle before proposing it. It's fine that it's removed now and awaits a definition of it, but I want to be crystal clear that removing it at this point DOES NOT imply that it was never here or that we do not intend to define it in DID Core.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this seems like something to discuss on a special topic call, about services.
| "publicKeyJwk": { | ||
| "@id": "sec:publicKeyJwk", | ||
| "@type": "@json" | ||
| }, | ||
| "service": { | ||
| "@id": "didv:service", | ||
| "@id": "https://www.w3.org/TR/did-core/#dfn-services", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
hmm, this looks incorrect. Defining vocabulary IDs in DID Core could be done, but I suggest that we don't want to do that. Let's have a clean vocabulary file... that file is located at: https://www.w3.org/ns/did and the representation of that resource is the DID Spec Registries document.
So, the URL should be https://www.w3.org/ns/did#service.
| "@type": "@id", | ||
| "@container": "@set" | ||
| }, | ||
| "serviceEndpoint": { | ||
| "@id": "didv:serviceEndpoint", | ||
| "@id": "https://www.w3.org/TR/did-core/#dfn-service-endpoints", |
@contextfrom "Base Properties"Preview | Diff