Markus Sabadello
Markus Sabadello
I believe this has been addressed long ago and is sufficiently explained in the [HTTP(S) Binding section](https://www.w3.org/TR/did-resolution/#bindings-https). Closing.
Okay.. I'm wondering if this "DID redirect" pattern should be handled internally by a resolver, i.e. would an application invoke the resolver once and it would automatically start a child...
@csuwildcat Wasn't it you who originally suggested this feature? So that e.g. many users of a shared hub service provider could just point to the hub service provider's DID in...
@TomCJones Nobody ever proposed to encourage or support non-secure connections for service end points. This is not what this Issue is about. Having a DID as a service endpoint in...
After some years of implementation and adoption experience, I'm not aware of anyone who has implemented or used this feature. So I propose to not specify this for now, and...
As discussed, this topic has been moved to DID Extensions: https://github.com/w3c/did-extensions/issues/620
Closing, since this potential feature has been moved to DID Extensions.
Merging after consensus on last DID WG call.
Merging after approvals and suggestions applied.
Coming back to this issue after a while... I think there are currently no plans in the DID WG to specify a binding other than the [HTTP(S) Binding](https://w3c.github.io/did-resolution/#bindings-https). Regarding CBOR,...