-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12
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
feat: describe extension mechanism based on DIDs #299
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Supersedes #294 |
Co-authored-by: Brian Campbell <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Brian Campbell <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't really understand the weird politics and business interests behind trying SO hard again and again to remove an OPTIONAL feature. Why is this so important to some? What kind of interests lead editors to try to sneak in changes, to avoid discussion, and to ignore consensus? What does this change accomplish?
The fact is that a lot of people have already implemented this and have expressed support for DIDs in this specification (e.g. see #250).
I don't see the point of delegating this to "separate specifications or ecosystem regulations", this will only overcomplicate things and reduce interoperability.
I know that the "hopes and dreams of the DID community" are "tiresome" to some people. So why not just leave things as they are now and move on to something else.
This PR describes the extension point for ecosystem-specific issuer key resolution based on DIDs.
Preview here https://drafts.oauth.net/oauth-sd-jwt-vc/awoie/add-extension/draft-ietf-oauth-sd-jwt-vc.html