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

Summary of actions on a number of enhancements #121

Open
peacekeeper opened this issue Feb 6, 2025 · 5 comments
Open

Summary of actions on a number of enhancements #121

peacekeeper opened this issue Feb 6, 2025 · 5 comments

Comments

@peacekeeper
Copy link
Collaborator

peacekeeper commented Feb 6, 2025

This issue summarizes actions to be taken on a number of proposed enhancement issues that can be supported via new DID resolution options or parameters:

Issue Potential Parameter/Option name Proposed Action
(7) Support DIDs as serviceEndpoint? followServiceRedirect Raise issue in did-extensions
(90) More advanced DID URL dereferencing for verificationMethods? verificationRelationship Create PR in did-resolution: #122
(85) Request service by type serviceType Create PR in did-resolution: #125
(46) Add support for JWKS transformKeys Raise issue in did-extensions
(40) Expand relative URLs to absolute URLs in "id" fields ? Create PR in did-resolution: #126
(39) Expand referenced keys to inline keys ? Raise issue in did-extensions
(5) Discuss how to treat deactivated DIDs returnDeactivatedDidDocument Raise issue in did-extensions

Feel free to comment either here or in the issues about the specific enhancements.

@msporny
Copy link
Member

msporny commented Feb 7, 2025

+1 to the actions above.

@w3cbot
Copy link

w3cbot commented Feb 7, 2025

This was discussed during the #did meeting on 07 February 2025.

@wip-abramson
Copy link
Contributor

wip-abramson commented Feb 13, 2025

Thanks for putting this together @peacekeeper, the proposed actions look great.

The only issue I was unsure about was #40, I thought @msporny was advocating for it to be in the did resolution spec. But since @msporny has +1's to moving this to DID extensions then that clears things up for me.

@w3cbot
Copy link

w3cbot commented Feb 13, 2025

This was discussed during the #did meeting on 13 February 2025.

View the transcript

w3c/did-resolution#121

markus_sabadello: This is a meta issue, summarize conclusions -- enhancements, links to seven other issues, for all of them, discussion around DID Resolution specification itself -- new parameters, resolution options, proposed enhancements, trying to summarize that here. That would take care of 7 open issues, specific enhancements, specific topics have to go somewhere, but an attempt to close discussion around some of these topics we've discussed in last

few meetings.

markus_sabadello: Please take a look, we can create PRs or move things to extensions.

Wip: I appreciate you putting this together, get issues closed; can we just close issue when all actions have been done?

<Wip> w3c/did-resolution#40

Wip: Manu, you said these actions are fine, my memory of issue 40 is that you thought that should go in resolution.

<ivan> +1 to joe!

manu: I'm non-blocking on that... I have a preference, but not blocking preference. Fine to do whatever the group wants.

JoeAndrieu: We need to be specific about DID Core vs. DID Resolution (we need to not use those interchangeably) -- we're talking about DID Resolution.


@peacekeeper
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I thought @msporny was advocating for it to be in the did resolution spec

I just updated the table to reflect this.

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

No branches or pull requests

4 participants