Add language regarding DID Method Update Operation #220

OR13 · 2020-03-15T17:32:13Z

Add language about what an "Update" is.

Based on feedback here: #174

index.html

msporny

-1 to this PR. The last discussion we had regarding this property was that it was metadata... which means that it exists in a relationship such as doc.didDocument.created or, and this would be the preferred thing, it lives outside of the DID Document. did:web is the only thing that seems to need it and @dmitrizagidulin noted that he was fine just defining it in the did:web method context and then we'll decide on whether or not to move it into DID Core after a year or two of deployment experience.

OR13 · 2020-03-15T18:10:46Z

@msporny I don't understand your objection. Both "created" and "updated" are currently marked as "SHOULD".

I agree with your objection, and I believe this PR is an attempt to move us towards the perspective you are sharing.

Would you prefer I modify the PR to remove "created" and "updated" entirely?

Please provide actionable feedback, I'm happy to make changes.

msporny · 2020-03-15T18:18:08Z

Would you prefer I modify the PR to remove "created" and "updated" entirely?

Yes, please... you may be unaware that there were PRs already to do this (which failed, blocked by the metadata discussion):

#28
#27
#26

My expectation is that any PR you submit to remove created/updated/proof will be blocked for the same reason. The group is waiting on a resolution to the metadata discussion in order to resubmit those PRs.

Does that make sense?

OR13 · 2020-03-15T18:34:00Z

@msporny

Based on the content of this PR, I would not expect it to be blocked by those... This PR is a step towards removing metadata from the doc...

If any method decides to include such fields in the did document (did:web), but most others don't, then the spec should definitely not say "SHOULD", and IMO it should say MAY, and specify the timestamp format as it does currently...

otherwise we are inviting methods to put whatever "metadata" they want in the did document... we are currently encouraging them to do that, with the use of the word "SHOULD".

Removing the properties seems like a change more likely to be objected to than marking them as "MAY" when we know that only a few (1) DID Method wants to use them.

msporny · 2020-03-15T18:41:34Z

If any method decides to include such fields in the did document (did:web), but most others don't, then the spec should definitely not say "SHOULD", and IMO it should say MAY, and specify the timestamp format as it does currently...

We're still talking past each other.

A subset of the group believe that the DID Document MUST NOT specify created/updated metadata at the top level.

The options on the table right now seem to be:

Put metadata at the top-level of the DID Document. This conflates metadata about the DID subject w/ metadata about the DID Document. This led to objections and the "metadata buckets" discussion.
Put metadata in a didDocument property at the top level. This seems to be an acceptable compromise to both sides of the discussion. Only did:web seems to want to do this at present (based on the last call on this topic), so there was a suggestion for the did:web method to define this property and use it.
Do not put metadata in the DID document, and instead make it part of a DID Resolution response, which is what some would prefer as the cleanest option.

Changing the language to MAY is choice # 1 above, which is the point of contention around metadata in the DID document... which led to objections last time, and I suspect will lead to objections this time (because the fundamentals haven't changed around the discussion).

In other words, "MAY" is RFC-speak for: "It's totally cool if you want to put metadata at the top level, go ahead and do it if you want to."

…hub.com:OR13/did-core into feat/address-174-regarding-metadata-and-updated

OR13 · 2020-03-15T18:58:20Z

@msporny Ahh I see... I have reverted those changes, the PR now does not comment on metadata properties, only on DID Method Operations.

msporny

Minor nits then good to go.

index.html

Co-Authored-By: Manu Sporny <[email protected]>

brentzundel · 2020-03-17T17:45:22Z

The current proposed text is confusing to me. The section seems to be about updating a DID Document, but the text states that it is possible to update a DID Document without it changing.
Perhaps adding an example of an update that doesn't result in changes to the DID Doc would clarify things.

OR13 · 2020-03-17T19:12:59Z

@brentzundel

The text is about the "Update Operation" which might result in an updated representation...

I'm not sure an example would be appropriate here, since it would certainly be DID Method Specific.... This seems to be a case where the implementation guideline would be helpful...

For the sake of clarifying, imagine creating an update operation that is signed which replaces key material without changing the material.. or creating an update operation which is not valid....

Both are updates according to sidetree protocol (did:ion, did:elem, etc...), neither results in a did document change...

I'd prefer not to introduce method specific examples in did core... it invites politics.

Maybe this text is not helpful at all...

brentzundel · 2020-03-18T00:26:56Z

Perhaps just the sentence, "For example, an update operation which replaces key material without changing it could be a valid update that doesn't result in changes to the DID Document."

kdenhartog · 2020-03-18T08:56:25Z

index.html

+        </p>
+
+        <p>
+An update to a DID is any change in the data used to produce a DID Document. 


This sentence feels weird to me because it could be understood that the initial creation of a DID Document is an update.

Nothing => basic did Doc

This would be classified as an update using this language. Is that an intentional choice of language?

It was intentional, I think the language aligns well with KERI / did:peer / did:ethr / sidetree, but I'm happy to change it if there is something stronger.

I added "after creation" to address this concern.

Can I resolve this thread?

OR13 · 2020-03-18T14:01:49Z

@brentzundel thanks, I added your language, much clearer.

msporny

Minor nits, can merge after they're resolved.

index.html

Co-Authored-By: Manu Sporny <[email protected]>

Implemented requested changes

OR13 · 2020-03-21T19:10:57Z

@msporny I have merged your changes, can you review again?

msporny

Editorial, all changes requested and made, multiple positive reviews, merging.

Address w3c#174 - Add langauge regarding Update

d3d6da4

OR13 requested review from msporny, peacekeeper, selfissued, awoie, dhh1128, dmitrizagidulin and talltree and removed request for msporny March 15, 2020 17:32

OR13 commented Mar 15, 2020

View reviewed changes

index.html Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Update index.html

2595d51

msporny requested changes Mar 15, 2020

View reviewed changes

OR13 requested a review from msporny March 15, 2020 18:12

OR13 added 2 commits March 15, 2020 13:56

Revert MAY to SHOULD

41d4dc8

Merge branch 'feat/address-174-regarding-metadata-and-updated' of git…

ceea8f7

…hub.com:OR13/did-core into feat/address-174-regarding-metadata-and-updated

OR13 changed the title ~~Add language regarding Update~~ Add language regarding DID Method Update Operation Mar 15, 2020

msporny requested changes Mar 15, 2020

View reviewed changes

index.html Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

index.html Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

index.html Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

index.html Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

OR13 and others added 4 commits March 15, 2020 14:07

Update index.html

abaf99b

Co-Authored-By: Manu Sporny <[email protected]>

Update index.html

82fffca

Co-Authored-By: Manu Sporny <[email protected]>

Update index.html

493b9de

Co-Authored-By: Manu Sporny <[email protected]>

formatting

12aceae

OR13 requested a review from msporny March 15, 2020 19:10

msporny approved these changes Mar 15, 2020

View reviewed changes

kdenhartog reviewed Mar 18, 2020

View reviewed changes

PR Feedback

b2ba77d

brentzundel approved these changes Mar 18, 2020

View reviewed changes

kdenhartog approved these changes Mar 18, 2020

View reviewed changes

msporny previously requested changes Mar 19, 2020

View reviewed changes

index.html Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

index.html Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

index.html Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

OR13 and others added 3 commits March 21, 2020 14:09

Update index.html

50f231f

Co-Authored-By: Manu Sporny <[email protected]>

Update index.html

47382b3

Co-Authored-By: Manu Sporny <[email protected]>

Update index.html

8b4936d

Co-Authored-By: Manu Sporny <[email protected]>

OR13 requested a review from msporny March 21, 2020 19:10

msporny approved these changes Mar 23, 2020

View reviewed changes

msporny merged commit a84f18c into w3c:master Mar 23, 2020

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Add language regarding DID Method Update Operation #220

Add language regarding DID Method Update Operation #220

OR13 commented Mar 15, 2020 •

edited by pr-preview bot

Loading

msporny left a comment

OR13 commented Mar 15, 2020 •

edited

Loading

msporny commented Mar 15, 2020

OR13 commented Mar 15, 2020 •

edited

Loading

msporny commented Mar 15, 2020 •

edited

Loading

OR13 commented Mar 15, 2020 •

edited

Loading

msporny left a comment

brentzundel commented Mar 17, 2020

OR13 commented Mar 17, 2020 •

edited

Loading

brentzundel commented Mar 18, 2020

kdenhartog Mar 18, 2020 •

edited

Loading

OR13 Mar 18, 2020 •

edited

Loading

OR13 Mar 18, 2020

OR13 Mar 21, 2020

OR13 commented Mar 18, 2020 •

edited

Loading

msporny left a comment

OR13 commented Mar 21, 2020

msporny left a comment

Add language regarding DID Method Update Operation #220

Add language regarding DID Method Update Operation #220

Conversation

OR13 commented Mar 15, 2020 • edited by pr-preview bot Loading

msporny left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

OR13 commented Mar 15, 2020 • edited Loading

msporny commented Mar 15, 2020

OR13 commented Mar 15, 2020 • edited Loading

msporny commented Mar 15, 2020 • edited Loading

OR13 commented Mar 15, 2020 • edited Loading

msporny left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

brentzundel commented Mar 17, 2020

OR13 commented Mar 17, 2020 • edited Loading

brentzundel commented Mar 18, 2020

kdenhartog Mar 18, 2020 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

OR13 Mar 18, 2020 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

OR13 Mar 18, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

OR13 Mar 21, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

OR13 commented Mar 18, 2020 • edited Loading

msporny left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

OR13 commented Mar 21, 2020

msporny left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

OR13 commented Mar 15, 2020 •

edited by pr-preview bot

Loading

OR13 commented Mar 15, 2020 •

edited

Loading

OR13 commented Mar 15, 2020 •

edited

Loading

msporny commented Mar 15, 2020 •

edited

Loading

OR13 commented Mar 15, 2020 •

edited

Loading

OR13 commented Mar 17, 2020 •

edited

Loading

kdenhartog Mar 18, 2020 •

edited

Loading

OR13 Mar 18, 2020 •

edited

Loading

OR13 commented Mar 18, 2020 •

edited

Loading