Skip to content
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

switch delta format #24

Open
dhh1128 opened this issue Aug 31, 2020 · 4 comments
Open

switch delta format #24

dhh1128 opened this issue Aug 31, 2020 · 4 comments

Comments

@dhh1128
Copy link
Collaborator

dhh1128 commented Aug 31, 2020

@OR13 suggested here that we switch the format of deltas to use signed-ietf-json-patch... https://github.com/decentralized-identity/did-spec-extensions/blob/master/parameters/signed-ietf-json-patch.md.

I think this is probably a great improvement. I wanted to ask a couple clarification questions first.

  1. It's important to peer DID CRDT update logic that deltas can be applied in different orders. They have some internal properties that describe their preconditions, but if A->B->C produces the same state as A->C->B, and the intermediate difference is not one that would alter the outcome, either sequence should be allowed. From my reading of signed-ietf-json-patch, it looks like this is not a problem. However, I would be concerned if the patch requires a specific pre-existing state such that it forces absolute ordering. I would also be concerned if the patch doesn't allow any statements about pre-existing state to force approximate ordering. Does anybody know if we can cross this off my worry list?

  2. What dependencies do we incur by using this patch mechanism?

@OR13
Copy link

OR13 commented Sep 1, 2020

Another thing to consider is the ION / Sidetree is no longer even using initial-state... because they have opted to make the identifier compound.... AFAIK did:peer could do the same and avoid both initial-state and signed-ietf-json-patch.

Here is the difference:

Option 1

did:example:123?signed-ietf-json-patch=JWS

Option 2

did:example:123:JWS

The DID Method then decided how to handle the "long" and "short" form DIDs.

@llorllale
Copy link
Contributor

Where are we on this?

@dhh1128
Copy link
Collaborator Author

dhh1128 commented Jan 15, 2021

The short answer is that nothing has happened on this because we've been focused elsewhere.

I am not opposed to a change in concept, as long as the necessary characteristics of the delta don't change. However, I think this will continue to be back-burner for a while.

@OR13
Copy link

OR13 commented Jan 25, 2021

I chatted with some other did peer implementers, and concluded that is it better to just use did:key, until KERI based methods catch up and can replace did peer. If you wondering if you should spend time on did peer, my 2 cents is to help KERI, use did:key or use sidetree.

@dhh1128 dhh1128 mentioned this issue Mar 9, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants