-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 8
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
Is there a way/convention for transitioning an existing did:web
DID to be a did:tdw
DID?
#68
Comments
It seems reasonable to me, and I like the use case much better than adding a generic
On future updates, you would likely take the |
Given the update in PR #77 that now puts the SCID in a fixed position, this becomes pretty easy -- the DID does not have to move. To be added to a section of the specification. Arguably, should be in the Implementers Guide. |
Raised by @PatStLouis asked on the CCG Presentation about
did:tdw
. Since the DID does not have a SCID, it cannot be “just used”. However, perhaps there is a good convention for adding adid.jsonl
file beside the existingdid:web
such that the DID can transition to adid:tdw
. Calculation of the SCID would have to be formalized, the numbering and so on.A number of questions to consider.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: