[DID Content References] "!" notation is problematic for a DID Resolver

[mwherman2000]

Consider the following single "Hashlink" example from the paper https://github.com/WebOfTrustInfo/rwot8-barcelona/blob/master/topics-and-advance-readings/DID-Content-References.md ...

did:sov:21tDAKCERh95uGgKbJNHYp!hl:zQmWvQxTqbG2Z9HPJgG57jjwR154cKhbtJenbyYTWkjgF3e

1. How is a DID Resolver for the "did:sov:" DID method supposed to know what type of JSON document to return for the identifier 21tDAKCERh95uGgKbJNHYp (within the "did:sov:` DID method context)?

Clearly the data for the object as serialized and stored on the ledger will know its object type (via some sort of type or subtype attribute) ...i.e. whether the corresponding object is a DID Document, a Hashlink object, etc.

2. What if 21tDAKCERh95uGgKbJNHYp is the id for a DID Document and the Resolver is asked to apply the "!" operator to a DID Document instead of an intended Hashlink object? Does the Resolver return some sort of "type mismatch" error diagnostic to the caller?

CC: @talltree @peacekeeper

[mwherman2000]

In this scenario (same Hashlink example from the paper):

did:sov:21tDAKCERh95uGgKbJNHYp!hl:zQmWvQxTqbG2Z9HPJgG57jjwR154cKhbtJenbyYTWkjgF3e

I propose the following semantics (although at an implementation level, there may be optimizations):

• that the DID Resolver simply fetch the object that matches did:sov:21tDAKCERh95uGgKbJNHYp on the ledger (if it exists); then the dereferencing operation can be applied (if it is applicable for the type of the fetched object).

[andrewhughes3000]

As has been pointed out in other places, this content is not part of the Credentials Community Group DID specification or DID Resolver work. I suggest that you do not use this repo for specification development comments - it is unlikely that contributions here will be preserved for that purpose and equally unlikely that the CCG participants will respond here. If or when anything originating from here emerges in CCG, that will be the place to raise issues etc. I'll leave it to you to decide whether these issues should or should not be here. *Andrew Hughes *CISM CISSP *In Turn Information Management Consulting* o +1 650.209.7542 m +1 250.888.9474 1249 Palmer Road, Victoria, BC V8P 2H8 AndrewHughes3000@gmail.com *https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrew-hughes-682058a <https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrew-hughes-682058a>* *Digital Identity | International Standards | Information Security *

…

On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 10:13 AM Michael Herman (Toronto) < ***@***.***> wrote: In this scenario did:sov:21tDAKCERh95uGgKbJNHYp!hl:zQmWvQxTqbG2Z9HPJgG57jjwR154cKhbtJenbyYTWkjgF3e I propose the following semantics (although at an implementation level, there may be optimizations): - that the DID Resolver simply fetch the object that matches did:sov:21tDAKCERh95uGgKbJNHYp on the ledger (if it exists); then the dereferencing operation can be applied. — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#167 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ASYM_HM0z9BAmiGesZgP7keMVB0TKBniks5vW9SqgaJpZM4b2668> .

[mwherman2000]

I appreciate your comments @andrewhughes3000, I've been simply posting comments in the issues log of the repository where the subject documents are stored ...conventional github operating procedure.

Where do you propose that discussions specific to specific RWOT documents take place?

[andrewhughes3000]

I don't propose anything - just pointing out a pitfall of material posted here if it is intended to be consumed by a group that is not watching this repo. *Andrew Hughes *CISM CISSP *In Turn Information Management Consulting* o +1 650.209.7542 m +1 250.888.9474 1249 Palmer Road, Victoria, BC V8P 2H8 AndrewHughes3000@gmail.com *https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrew-hughes-682058a <https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrew-hughes-682058a>* *Digital Identity | International Standards | Information Security *

…

On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 10:27 AM Michael Herman (Toronto) < ***@***.***> wrote: I appreciate your comments @andrewhughes3000 <https://github.com/andrewhughes3000>, I've been simply posting comments in the issues log of the repository where the subject documents are stored ...conventional github operating procedure. Where do you propose that discussions specific to specific RWOT documents take place? — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#167 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ASYM_A_2hHDQRvDwF2hdLm7ubmWY_xIHks5vW9fugaJpZM4b2668> .