generated from TBD54566975/tbd-project-template
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 18
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 interop with jwk and key #56
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We'll want to modify this slightly to:
did:dht
Ed25519 key (that just makes sure we bind the Ed25519 key to a resolution network --did:dht
). We can register the Multikey prefix pretty quickly to do that.JsonWebKey2020
is definitely out of date and is not going to survive standardization. We should be usingJsonWebKey
anywhere that we were usingJsonWebKey2020
before.did:key
to be encoded in z-base-32, we could do that... though I don't think there's a Multibase encoding for that yet? If there is interest there, we could look into that (this is one of the reasons Multibase exists -- because the base-encoding you use is largely driven by what the protocols are optimized for -- humans, ASCII, glyph compression, or some combination of the previous).None of the feedback above is blocking for now, but wanted to just make sure it was registered as feedback so we can adjust going forward.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
agree with 1 + 2 will update when the did:key spec is updated ... (#57)
for 3 I think this is a good idea as it reduces the need to re-encode/decode here for resolvers...but that raises a question. Is it preferable to reduce the impact on existing implementations (i.e. not need to support z-base-32) and just keep the translation a function of resolvers/registrars?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
re: 3 -- yes, it's a good question. I haven't had enough time to think about it in detail... my gut tells me to not add the z-base-32 requirement for
did:key
implementations... but then again, it's a fairly trivial piece of code to write (it's just general base-encoding w/ a specific base-32 alphabet). Most implementations should just treat thedid:key
value as text until it's handed to a resolver/registrar/verifier... someone will have to do a deeper analysis on the benefits/drawbacks.