-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 98
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
DID Parameters: Service - only fragment or complete id? #847
Comments
Hello @mschmidm , good question, and nice summary of sources related to this topic! My understanding has always been that the value of the So for example Regarding the language in 3.2.1: "Identifies a service from the DID document by service ID" I would agree that this language isn't very clear, but I don't think it necessarily implies that the value of the A future DID WG will have the opportunity to clarify this topic more in the DID Resolution specification, and standardize the exact steps for dereferencing a DID URL with a |
Hi @peacekeeper , thank you for your answer! I agree, this is most likely the intended meaning. The phrasing im 3.2.1. is unclear, but it does not contradict this interpretation. This interpretation could have two different implications.
In both cases, the DID service parameter should always work if you refer to a service with the according format. Fortunately, this assumption should be sufficient for most use cases, including mine. This makes the parametee definitely a handy feature. Thanks again! |
This was discussed during the #did meeting on 06 December 2024. |
Following the refactor of DID parameters into the DID resolution spec in this pending PR - w3c/did-resolution#106 - I suggest this issue should be moved under DID resolution and address there. |
I think I have found an unclear, possibly incorrect, specification. It is not clear how the DID service parameter should be used.
How exactly should the "service" parameter be used? Should it be the whole service id URI (and then presumably use percent-encoding)? Or should it just be a URL fragment (but then the service id specification would have to be more precisely defined)?
Thank you for working on this great specification! :)
Best regards
mschmidm
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: