Is there a way/convention for transitioning an existing `did:web` DID to be a `did:tdw` DID?

[swcurran]

Raised by @PatStLouis asked on the CCG Presentation about did:tdw. Since the DID does not have a SCID, it cannot be “just used”. However, perhaps there is a good convention for adding a did.jsonl file beside the existing did:web such that the DID can transition to a did:tdw. Calculation of the SCID would have to be formalized, the numbering and so on.

A number of questions to consider.

[andrewwhitehead]

It seems reasonable to me, and I like the use case much better than adding a generic did:web to a did:tdw for compatibility.

1. Copy the current DID document, adding {SCID} placeholders and changing the method, and perform the genesis routine to create the SCID, assigning update keys and updating the document in the process.
2. Update the did:tdw document to have an alsoKnownAs set to the did:web.
3. Update the did:web document to have an alsoKnownAs set to the did:tdw (this is expected to be bidirectional).
4. Publish did.jsonl and the updated did.json

On future updates, you would likely take the did:tdw document and simply update the document identifier to generate the did.json. Eventually, everything should be migrated to the new DID and the old one retired.

[swcurran]

Given the update in PR #77 that now puts the SCID in a fixed position, this becomes pretty easy -- the DID does not have to move.

To be added to a section of the specification. Arguably, should be in the Implementers Guide.

[swcurran]

This is included in the spec and has been for several versions. Closing.