Markus Sabadello
Markus Sabadello
> process for suggesting / creating new `service` types Hi @Tweeddalex just write a specification that explains the service type, and then create a PR to add it here: https://w3c.github.io/did-spec-registries/#service-types...
Regarding the Explainer document, it seems there is a change in the process that no longer requires a separate Expainer document; instead, we should be able to incorporate the required...
Hello, I could do a presentation on "Extensibility of DID Resolution and DID URL Dereferencing" where I could list a number of interesting applications and extensions that have been developed...
I agree with @OR13 and @Therecanbeonlyone1969 that even though it would clearly be desirable to have some kind of proof in the metadata which would allow independent verification of the...
> This @peacekeeper : > > > ... application connects to that DID resolver instance via mutually authenticated TLS or via DIDComm, then there isn't really any third-party intermediary that...
@ntn-x2 Interesting, thanks for the explanation! Maybe this is an example where it could be argued either way. > typically including a proof-of-storage as part of the response would change...
This has been addressed by https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/pull/178, marking as pending-close.
Note that this also removes the current DID Resolution JSON-LD context file: https://w3c.github.io/did-resolution/contexts/did-resolution-v1.json
No objections, multiple approvals, merging.
This has been addressed by https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/pull/146