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

Create DID resolution test suite #64

Open
peacekeeper opened this issue May 14, 2021 · 1 comment
Open

Create DID resolution test suite #64

peacekeeper opened this issue May 14, 2021 · 1 comment

Comments

@peacekeeper
Copy link
Collaborator

The DID test suite has sections on DID resolution and DID URL deferencing, however those don't actually test live resolvers (since that was out-of-scope for the DID Core specification). The DID Resolution specification does define a concrete HTTP(S) binding as well as a concrete representation of a DID resolution result. Therefore, a DID Resolution test suite should be created to test those additional pieces of functionality.

The VC HTTP API test suite depends on DID Resolution to some degree, but there is interest in minimizing that component and move it to this work item here.

@OR13
Copy link
Contributor

OR13 commented May 14, 2021

I support this proposal.

In particular I think it's important to standardize resolution and dereferencing over https.

Especially as they relate to Verifiable Credentials.

At one point a while ago, i wrote a script that consumed the universal resolver config and then resolved all the did documents and "consumed / produced" them as JSON-LD to detect errors.

I think we could probably do something similar here, and maybe even use the JSON Schema and SHACL associated with did core.

Another thing I have noticed is returning the didDocument, metadata in the response body vs didDocument as the response body. I assume we have the same issue for dereference (with or without meta) as the response body or in it.

The did core spec is flexbile here, but we can make recommendations that reduce complexity.

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

2 participants