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

Add text clarifying where group controllers might be listed. #883

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

msporny
Copy link
Member

@msporny msporny commented Mar 3, 2025

This PR is an attempt to address issue #839 by adding text clarifying where group controllers might be listed.


Preview | Diff

@@ -4025,7 +4025,15 @@ <h3>Group Control</h3>
In the case of group control, the [=DID controllers=] are expected to act
together in some fashion, such as when using a cryptographic algorithm that
requires multiple digital signatures ("multi-sig") or a threshold number of
digital signatures ("m-of-n"). From a functional standpoint, this option is
digital signatures ("m-of-n"). The expression of these additional thresholds for
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
digital signatures ("m-of-n"). The expression of these additional thresholds for
digital signatures ("m-of-n"). These additional thresholds for

digital signatures ("m-of-n"). The expression of these additional thresholds for
verifying a proof can be expressed in a [=verification method=] as described in
Section [[[#verification-methods]]] or can be an intrinsic part of the
[=verification method=] where the number of [=DID controllers=] that
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
[=verification method=] where the number of [=DID controllers=] that
verification material of the [=verification method=], where the number of [=DID controllers=] that

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I also am hesitant at the use of DID controllers here.

Definition:

An entity that has the capability to make changes to a DID document. A DID might have more than one DID controller. The DID controller(s) can be denoted by the optional controller property at the top level of the DID document. Note that a DID controller might be the DID subject.

If we substitute for the definition I don't think it makes sense:

verification material of the [=verification method=], where the number of "entities that have the capability to make changes to a [DID document]" that participated in the generation of a particular digital signature are hidden for privacy reasons.

This is really the number of signing parties/entities that participated in the generation of a particular digital signature ...

Or something like that.

@wip-abramson
Copy link
Contributor

Reading over the section referenced in issue #839 - https://www.w3.org/TR/did-1.0/#group-control.

I think I would add another sentence:

Verification methods that require the combination of cryptographic operations from members of a group to produce a proof MAY be used to control the contents of a DID document, how this is realized is dependent on individual DID method specifications.

Just because a DID document expresses a verificationMethod, does not automatically mean that those who can create proofs associated with that verificationMethod have the ability to control the content of the DID document. Sometimes, even often, these are completely separated by the DID method.

@TallTed
Copy link
Member

TallTed commented Mar 5, 2025

Maybe?
Verification methods that require a proof be produced by a combination of cryptographic operations performed by members of a group MAY be used to control the contents of a DID document; exactly how this is realized depends on individual DID method specifications.

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants