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

Align DID document service type with Aries DID Doc conventions? #179

Closed
domwoe opened this issue Apr 8, 2021 · 10 comments
Closed

Align DID document service type with Aries DID Doc conventions? #179

domwoe opened this issue Apr 8, 2021 · 10 comments
Assignees
Labels
pending close speak soon! PR Needed v2.0 necessary for spec completion

Comments

@domwoe
Copy link

domwoe commented Apr 8, 2021

Is the difference between the spec here and the Aries DID Document conventions on purpose or should this be aligned ?

DIF Service type: "DIDcomm"
Aries DID Doc convention service type "did-communication"

@baha-ai
Copy link
Contributor

baha-ai commented Apr 8, 2021

indeed they should match

@OR13
Copy link
Contributor

OR13 commented Apr 10, 2021

If this "service type", is going to look different than every other type property, it should at least be registered....

https://github.com/w3c/did-spec-registries

@OR13
Copy link
Contributor

OR13 commented Apr 10, 2021

strong -1 to "Aries DID Document" representations super-seeding the W3C Conventions.

@domwoe
Copy link
Author

domwoe commented Apr 12, 2021

@troyronda @swcurran What do you think? This could be point in time where an adjustment in Aries could be done without greater hiccups.

@TimoGlastra
Copy link
Contributor

I think the types should be kept separated as they have different working.

The Aries RFCs did-communication includes recipientKeys and routingKeys, while this spec doesn't have a recipientKeys property. All keys declared in the DID Document’s keyAgreement section should be used as recipients when encrypting a message. Also the Aries did-communication includes a priority which I also don't see here.

Shouldn't we just interpet did-communication as DIDComm v1 service, and DIDComm as DIDComm v2 service. If you support both, you include both in your DIDDoc.

@TelegramSam
Copy link
Collaborator

Per previous WG discussions, this intentionally does not align with DIDComm V1 (Aries) conventions in order to tell them apart.

This will be discussed in today's WG meeting.

@OR13
Copy link
Contributor

OR13 commented Apr 12, 2021

I think its a good idea to make DIDComm v1 and DIDComm v2 distinguishable... I hate to suggest date stamping but thats also an option.

It wouldn't be the end of the world if the service type were different, if it was well documented and registered.

@kdenhartog kdenhartog added v2.0 necessary for spec completion PR exists come to the next meeting to discuss it PR Needed and removed PR exists come to the next meeting to discuss it labels Jul 16, 2021
@kdenhartog
Copy link
Contributor

@TelegramSam was there an outcome to this that can be put into a PR?

@TelegramSam
Copy link
Collaborator

@kdenhartog I think no, but I need to chase down all the details and verify.

@TelegramSam TelegramSam self-assigned this Jul 30, 2021
@TelegramSam TelegramSam added the pending close speak soon! label Feb 28, 2022
@mccown
Copy link
Member

mccown commented Feb 28, 2022

This was discussed in the DIDComm WG on 20220228. It was decided to leave the description as is.

@mccown mccown closed this as completed Feb 28, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
pending close speak soon! PR Needed v2.0 necessary for spec completion
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

7 participants