-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 16
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
Consider enabling optional verification methods #231
Comments
I'll split those changes out of that PR for now so the decision doesn't block it |
what's the use case? |
@decentralgabe refer to the linked comment in #190 for full context. If you disagree with the proposal then please voice your concern. |
expounding on my prior comment there are two schools of thought
For Web5, we've gone with approach 2. We're exploring whether approach 1 makes more sense. This leads to me to my current thinking which is a hybrid of (1) and (2): let's implement the specs to be as useful as possible. This means if there are usecases that can be served (either by us at TBD or the community at large) by implementing features of the specification, we should do it--or at least take these feature requests under strong consideration. Barring that, creating optionality for the sake of conforming to the spec, I believe, creates more risk than benefit. Directing this line of reasoning toward this issue I will ask: do we have a use case for a DID Document without a Verification Method? I cannot think of one where it would be useful. In fact I think it would be more confusing to resolve a DID, see it has no Verification Methods, and not be able to do anything with it. One alternate approach: support creating DIDs with Verification Methods (required), but resolving/serializing/deserializing without. |
Originally spurred from here, please read the full comment exchange for context #190 (comment)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: