Conversation

Notices

1. silverpill (silverpill@mitra.social)'s status on Monday, 21-Oct-2024 21:50:29 JST silverpill

   • arcanicanis
   • bumblefudge
   • bryan newbold
   • Erlend Sogge Heggen

   @bnewbold There is no advantage in using DID URLs. That severely limits the number of DID methods developers can use, and excludes the most important method, did:key.

   You're right, new URI scheme is much better. This approach is being explored in FEP-ef61 (where ap:// scheme was proposed).

   ActivityPub IDs are RFC-3986 URIs, and that RFC doesn't forbid non-DNS naming authorities (idk about WHATWG standard). However, you can't build a valid RFC-3986 URI with plain DID because the portion after the last colon is parsed as a port number. Two solutions has been proposed:

   - Percent encode DID: ap://did%3Akey%3Az6MkrJVnaZkeFzdQyMZu1cgjg7k1pZZ6pvBQ7XJPt4swbTQ2/actor
   - Pretend that we are using IP address from the future: ap://[vd.did:key:z6MkvUie7gDQugJmyDQQPhMCCBfKJo7aGvzQYF2BqvFvdwx6]/actor

   @arcanicanis @by_caballero @erlend

   • silverpill (silverpill@mitra.social)'s status on Monday, 21-Oct-2024 22:04:09 JST silverpill

     in reply to

     • arcanicanis
     • bumblefudge
     • bryan newbold
     • Erlend Sogge Heggen

     @bnewbold Of course, a new syntax for DID authorities would be preferable

     ap://{did:key:z6MkvUie7gDQugJmyDQQPhMCCBfKJo7aGvzQYF2BqvFvdwx6}/actor

     But standardization of it may take many years. And after that people will need to update all existing URI/URL parsing libraries and software that depends on them.

     @arcanicanis @by_caballero @erlend

   • bumblefudge (by_caballero@mastodon.social)'s status on Tuesday, 22-Oct-2024 04:36:28 JST bumblefudge

     in reply to

     • bryan newbold
     • Erlend Sogge Heggen

     @silverpill @arcanicanis @erlend @bnewbold why is support for more did methods an assumed goal? for whom and in which use cases is a non http protocol handler justified? why is did:key important? why is ap:// the best possible url scheme for the AP protocol? it feels like we're talking at a general level and yet so many usecase-specific requirements and goals keep sneaking in

   • silverpill (silverpill@mitra.social)'s status on Tuesday, 22-Oct-2024 04:36:28 JST silverpill

     in reply to

     • arcanicanis
     • bumblefudge
     • bryan newbold
     • Erlend Sogge Heggen

     @by_caballero

     >why is support for more did methods an assumed goal?

     Because extensibility is good. New DID methods are constantly being invented and there shouldn't be any artificial restrictions on their use.

     >for whom and in which use cases is a non http protocol handler justified?

     In an 'http' URL, the authority is derived from the domain name. In our case, authority is derived from a cryptographic identity, so a custom URI scheme is more appropriate.

     >why is did:key important?

     did:key doesn't depend on any external services and is the easiest to implement.

     >why is ap: the best possible url scheme for the AP protocol?

     It works and so far no other scheme has been proposed.

     @erlend @bnewbold @arcanicanis