Markus Sabadello

Per the current spec, the above `did:ion` Sidetree example is not a valid DID document, since the value of `id` MUST be a DID, not a DID URL (see section...

> I think this belongs in did core, since did core is defining dereferencing The idea was that DID Core would define abstract functions with the inputs and outputs of...

> Are they allowed in the `id` field of a verificationMethod? @OR13 yes the `id` of a verification method could be a DID URL such as `did:example:123?version-id=1#key-0`. The spec currently...

Is this maybe the same problem as the long form / short form thing in Sidetree? Could you do this: ``` { "id": "did:example:123", "sameAs": "did:example:123?version=0", "verificationMethod": [ { "id":...

Thanks @kdenhartog for this very interesting question, there are several considerations here that have to do with fundamental web architecture: - Note that there is a proposal for a DID...

This has been addressed by https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/pull/178, marking as pending-close.

@digeorgi I still think the coupling between data model and proof format is much stronger in ISO/IEC 18013-5 and SD-JWT VC than it is in VCDM. But yes I agree...

I wrote some language about this here: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/pull/178

One approach could be to decide and explicitly say that "contactName == change controller", but also clarify the role of the contact: 1. The contact can request changes to a...

Hello, I agree with @clehner 's interpretation.. The intention is that `versionId` and `versionTime` can be passed as resolution options to the resolve() / resolveRepresentation() functions. And yes the idea...