Add "key-type" DID URL matrix parameter.

[peacekeeper]

Re-creating PR from CCG repo: w3c-ccg/did-spec#193. Please consider earlier discussions there.

---

Preview | Diff

[peacekeeper]

This adds one concrete DID URL matrix parameter.

Description: Identifies a set of keys from the DID Document by key type.

Example: did:example:1234;key-type=Ed25519VerificationKey2018

[dlongley]

-1 to merging as is because I don't know what the purpose of this parameter is and because it seems like it would tend to produce a set of keys whilst losing their authorized purpose (which could be dangerous). It is also "key" specific, not allowing for other types (i.e., why not "type="?).

[msporny]

did:example:1234;key-type=Ed25519VerificationKey2018

I don't understand the use case here... why can't you just write a function to go through the DID Document and fetch all of these keys?

I'm trying to understand where we'd put a value like this -- did:example:1234;key-type=Ed25519VerificationKey2018 ... like, we'd put it in a database table because we'd want to get the set of all Ed25519VerificationKey2018s, but I'm struggling to figure out why we'd put this value in a database table vs. just write a function to extract what we want from the DID Document?

[selfissued]

I believe that we should not merge this until we've determined whether there is actually consensus to resurrect the matrix parameter syntax at all. Less is more.

[selfissued]

I believe that we should not merge this until we've determined whether there is actually consensus to resurrect the matrix parameter syntax at all. Less is more.

[OR13]

I believe the consensus on this was that its not a good idea, and we should close this PR.

[msporny]

I believe the consensus on this was that its not a good idea, and we should close this PR.

Agreed... @peacekeeper can we close this PR?

[OR13]

@peacekeeper can we close this?

[OR13]

@msporny @brentzundel @burnburn can we get labels on all the open PRs related to changes that have matrix parameters in them, and mark them as "pending-close"... we have a lot of PRs open... PRs should not remain open unless they are being worked on / going to be merged within a week or 2.... we are loosing the ability to focus reviews on things that need reviews...

[kdenhartog]

Marked pending close after the resolution 1 on the 4/7/2020 call.

[peacekeeper]

Marked pending close after the resolution 1 on the 4/7/2020 call.

I agree this should be closed, but the reason for closing is that there has been consensus that there is no need for having key-type as a DID parameter in the DID URL. The resolution on the 2020-04-07 call was about the syntax of DID parameters, which is independent of the question which DID parameters we want.

[msporny]

Let's take this up on the next special topic call since we're still discussing the general area of DID Parameters.

[kdenhartog]

Let's take this up on the next special topic call since we're still discussing the general area of DID Parameters.

Sounds good, I'll hold off on taking any other action until I see confirmation from an editor or chair and will instead prompt others to take action if I see it becomes stale.