[High-Level Use Case Documents] List of high-level use case documents that guide/drive the did-url use cases for the did-url grammar

[mwherman2000]

For example, the "filter" syntax in the feature-discovery 1.0 HIPE (https://github.com/dhh1128/indy-hipe/blob/9c7722d208cfe0a336cb67a626cbbb192ae73f8c/text/feature-discovery/README.md) per the following discussion in https://chat.hyperledger.org/channel/indy-agent ... apologies in advance for the screenshot...

This will become another did-url use case in #32 (use case number 18 or greater).

[mwherman2000]

This is actually a very interesting use case where the did-url grammar is deeply and implicitly embedded inside a separate set of specifications.

[peacekeeper]

Michael, if this issue is about making sure that Indy supports did-url syntax or DID Resolution correctly, then this really doesn't belong here. We hope that there will be many implementations of DIDs, and we don't want to cover implementation-specific issues here on the spec level. So I'm closing this.

If you think there's an actual issue or proposal for the spec itself here, then please re-open and clarify.

[mwherman2000]

Yes @peacekeeper there is a specific did-url use case here that needs to be tracked until it is resolved. Re-open this and leave open until I can confirm it has been resolved.

If you think there's an actual issue or proposal for the spec itself here, then please re-open and clarify.

I don't appreciate this tactic that yourself, @rhiaro and @manu use all of the time of closing issues without validating that anything has been resolved. There is no way for me to "re-open" an issue - it's a #redherring to imply that I can.

There's about a dozen issues in https://github.com/w3c-ccg/did-spec/issues where @rhiaro done the same thing: closed the issue without resolving the defect. @rhiaro and @manu has refused to answer how these closed but unresolved issues are being tracked. For example, ...

• [DID Documents]: Opening sentence is confusing w3c-ccg/did-spec#140 (comment)
• [DID Documents]: Opening sentence is confusing w3c-ccg/did-spec#140 (comment)
• [DID Documents]: Opening sentence is confusing w3c-ccg/did-spec#140 (comment)

[peacekeeper]

Michael, apologies.. First of all, I didn't know that you can't re-open the issue. I thought the original creator can do this, but now I learned that only people with write access to a repo can re-open closed issues.

But I'm sorry I still don't understand how your issue is relevant to the DID (Resolution) spec. It feels like something Indy-specific. I suggest you 1. either clarify here on this issue how this is relevant to the CCG specs (then I'd be happy to re-open it), or 2. open a new issue with such clarification.

[mwherman2000]

No @peacekeeper , you need to right the wrong you have created and then ask for clarification. I'm not accepting this kind of behavior any more.

This is an example of exactly the kind of cliquish behavior being practiced by people with centralized power that is talked about in Credentials Community Group 2018 End of Year Survey Results.

CC: @rhiaro @manu @talltree

[peacekeeper]

I just re-opened the issue (like I said, I thought you'd be able to do that). I'm also sorry if there's any appearance of cliquish or insular behavior, this is certainly not the intention.

But please clarify how this issue is relevant to the DID Resolution spec, otherwise I will close it again. "Making sure that did-url grammar changes are propagated to Indy" probably belongs into the Hyperledger Indy JIRA and the Indy roadmap, but not here.

[talltree]

Michael, I agree with Markus here. The open standards work on CCG *must* be implementation-independent. As much as some of us on the CCG are involved with a specific open source implementation such as Hyperledger Indy, it does not belong in our work on open standards here.

…

On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 7:07 AM Markus Sabadello ***@***.***> wrote: I just re-opened the issue (like I said, I thought you'd be able to do that). I'm also sorry if there's any appearance of cliquish or insular behavior, this is certainly not the intention. But please clarify how this issue is relevant to the DID Resolution spec, otherwise I will close it again. *"Making sure that did-url grammar changes are propagated to Indy"* probably belongs into the Hyperledger Indy JIRA and the Indy roadmap, but not here. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#34 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADLkTeBxWx9F6TBZJAEm2nW6G3_gU-6dks5vYkCngaJpZM4b9tK4> .

[mwherman2000]

Michael, I agree with Markus here. The open standards work on CCG must be implementation-independent. As much as some of us on the CCG are involved with a specific open source implementation such as Hyperledger Indy, it does not belong in our work on open standards here.
…
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 7:07 AM Markus Sabadello @.***> wrote: I just re-opened the issue (like I said, I thought you'd be able to do that). I'm also sorry if there's any appearance of cliquish or insular behavior, this is certainly not the intention. But please clarify how this issue is relevant to the DID Resolution spec, otherwise I will close it again. "Making sure that did-url grammar changes are propagated to Indy" probably belongs into the Hyperledger Indy JIRA and the Indy roadmap, but not here. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#34 (comment)>, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADLkTeBxWx9F6TBZJAEm2nW6G3_gU-6dks5vYkCngaJpZM4b9tK4 .

@talltree Drummond, that's not the issue we're dealing with at the moment. Re-read the last couple comments. What you and Markus have added to this issue is no justification for unilaterally exercising one's power to close an issue. If you don't understand an issue, you need ask for clarification ...not shoot first, ask questions later.

[peacekeeper]

@mwherman2000 I already apologized for closing the issue so fast.. Once again: I thought you could simply re-open it if needed. Let's please not waste any more time on such a small misunderstanding.

Instead let's be constructive and try to figure out what to do with the actual issue.

[mwherman2000]

High-level use case documents that have been selected to drive the lower-level did-url use cases:

• Use Cases for Decentralized Identifiers
• Universal DID Operations
• Indy feature-discovery 1.0 HIPE

[mwherman2000]

• Indy attachments HIPE

[wip-abramson]

Just reviewing this issue.

I also struggle to understand the concrete changes @mwherman2000 you would like to see in the DID resolution specification.

Given this issue was raised a long time ago, @mwherman2000 is this something you still feel strongly about? If so could you please help us figure out how to process this issue?

Otherwise, I suggest closing it.

[peacekeeper]

I agree. This seems to be an issue for HL Indy or specific use cases, but I can't find anything in here that concerns the DID Resolution spec directly. Let's see if we can get clarification from @mwherman2000 , otherwise we'll mark pending close.

[peacekeeper]

Marking as pending-close, since this doesn't seem to be related directly to DID Resolution, and there has been no further discussion in a few years. Also, a similar issue was also closed long ago: #32