Ecosyste.ms: Issues
An open API service for providing issue and pull request metadata for open source projects.
GitHub / w3c/did issues and pull requests
#51 - [Convention] Method `0` (zero) become a well-known method for retrieving properties/metadata from/about a particular DID Server
Issue -
State: closed - Opened by brentzundel over 5 years ago
- 5 comments
Labels: discuss
#50 - Random capitalization of "key terms" ...those that appear in the Terminology section
Issue -
State: closed - Opened by brentzundel over 5 years ago
- 3 comments
Labels: editorial
#50 - Random capitalization of "key terms" ...those that appear in the Terminology section
Issue -
State: closed - Opened by brentzundel over 5 years ago
- 3 comments
Labels: editorial
#49 - If an existing DID Document has a Service Endpoint fragment, what are the primary keys to be used if that Service Endpoint needs to be replaced, updated, or deleted?
Issue -
State: closed - Opened by brentzundel over 5 years ago
- 3 comments
Labels: pending close, question
#49 - If an existing DID Document has a Service Endpoint fragment, what are the primary keys to be used if that Service Endpoint needs to be replaced, updated, or deleted?
Issue -
State: closed - Opened by brentzundel over 5 years ago
- 3 comments
Labels: pending close, question
#48 - Some comments by Steven Rowat
Issue -
State: closed - Opened by brentzundel over 5 years ago
- 2 comments
Labels: editorial, pending close
#48 - Some comments by Steven Rowat
Issue -
State: closed - Opened by brentzundel over 5 years ago
- 2 comments
Labels: editorial, pending close
#47 - Should "id" be mandatory for "service" and "publicKey"?
Issue -
State: closed - Opened by brentzundel over 5 years ago
- 7 comments
Labels: discuss
#47 - Should "id" be mandatory for "service" and "publicKey"?
Issue -
State: closed - Opened by brentzundel over 5 years ago
- 7 comments
Labels: discuss
#46 - It would be useful to have `services` as a mapping instead of an `array`
Issue -
State: closed - Opened by brentzundel over 5 years ago
- 2 comments
Labels: discuss, pending close
#46 - It would be useful to have `services` as a mapping instead of an `array`
Issue -
State: closed - Opened by brentzundel over 5 years ago
- 2 comments
Labels: discuss, pending close
#45 - Is method-specific-id supposed to be equivalent to param-char?
Issue -
State: closed - Opened by brentzundel over 5 years ago
- 8 comments
Labels: editorial, pending close
#45 - Is method-specific-id supposed to be equivalent to param-char?
Issue -
State: closed - Opened by brentzundel over 5 years ago
- 8 comments
Labels: editorial, pending close
#44 - DID Test Suite and untestable normative statements
Issue -
State: closed - Opened by brentzundel over 5 years ago
- 4 comments
Labels: editorial, pending close
#44 - DID Test Suite and untestable normative statements
Issue -
State: closed - Opened by brentzundel over 5 years ago
- 4 comments
Labels: editorial, pending close
#43 - [Introduction] Doesn't read well...
Issue -
State: closed - Opened by brentzundel over 5 years ago
- 2 comments
Labels: editorial
#43 - [Introduction] Doesn't read well...
Issue -
State: closed - Opened by brentzundel over 5 years ago
- 2 comments
Labels: editorial
#42 - [Introduction] Clarify...
Issue -
State: closed - Opened by brentzundel over 5 years ago
Labels: editorial
#42 - [Introduction] Clarify...
Issue -
State: closed - Opened by brentzundel over 5 years ago
Labels: editorial
#41 - [Introduction] Clarification...
Issue -
State: closed - Opened by brentzundel over 5 years ago
- 1 comment
#41 - [Introduction] Clarification...
Issue -
State: closed - Opened by brentzundel over 5 years ago
- 1 comment
#40 - [Abstract] Clarification...
Issue -
State: closed - Opened by brentzundel over 5 years ago
Labels: editorial
#40 - [Abstract] Clarification...
Issue -
State: closed - Opened by brentzundel over 5 years ago
Labels: editorial
#39 - [Absract] "proof purposes" is a new term but is not defined anywhere in the document
Issue -
State: closed - Opened by brentzundel over 5 years ago
- 2 comments
Labels: editorial, pr exists
#39 - [Absract] "proof purposes" is a new term but is not defined anywhere in the document
Issue -
State: closed - Opened by brentzundel over 5 years ago
- 2 comments
Labels: editorial, pr exists
#38 - [Abstract] Not sure of the intended meaning of the following sentence...
Issue -
State: closed - Opened by brentzundel over 5 years ago
Labels: editorial
#38 - [Abstract] Not sure of the intended meaning of the following sentence...
Issue -
State: closed - Opened by brentzundel over 5 years ago
Labels: editorial
#37 - Add "DID controller" to "Terminology" section.
Issue -
State: closed - Opened by brentzundel over 5 years ago
- 1 comment
Labels: editorial
#37 - Add "DID controller" to "Terminology" section.
Issue -
State: closed - Opened by brentzundel over 5 years ago
- 1 comment
Labels: editorial
#36 - Details on the use of method-specific DID parameters
Issue -
State: closed - Opened by brentzundel over 5 years ago
- 16 comments
Labels: pending close
#36 - Details on the use of method-specific DID parameters
Issue -
State: closed - Opened by brentzundel over 5 years ago
- 16 comments
Labels: pending close
#35 - Use colon separator or kebab-case for method-specific DID parameter names?
Issue -
State: closed - Opened by brentzundel over 5 years ago
- 6 comments
Labels: discuss, pending close
#35 - Use colon separator or kebab-case for method-specific DID parameter names?
Issue -
State: closed - Opened by brentzundel over 5 years ago
- 6 comments
Labels: discuss, pending close
#34 - Should DID syntax allow an empty "method-specific-id"?
Issue -
State: closed - Opened by brentzundel over 5 years ago
- 8 comments
Labels: discuss
#34 - Should DID syntax allow an empty "method-specific-id"?
Issue -
State: closed - Opened by brentzundel over 5 years ago
- 8 comments
Labels: discuss
#33 - Cheap DIDs and the option to migrate DIDs between ledgers using standard DID Deprecation Registries
Issue -
State: closed - Opened by brentzundel over 5 years ago
- 43 comments
Labels: pending close
#33 - Cheap DIDs and the option to migrate DIDs between ledgers using standard DID Deprecation Registries
Issue -
State: closed - Opened by brentzundel over 5 years ago
- 43 comments
Labels: pending close
#32 - Add section on services to data model section.
Pull Request -
State: closed - Opened by msporny over 5 years ago
- 1 comment
#32 - Add section on services to data model section.
Pull Request -
State: closed - Opened by msporny over 5 years ago
- 1 comment
#31 - Add section on cryptographic keys.
Pull Request -
State: closed - Opened by msporny over 5 years ago
- 1 comment
#31 - Add section on cryptographic keys.
Pull Request -
State: closed - Opened by msporny over 5 years ago
- 1 comment
#30 - Add initial text to DID Document section.
Pull Request -
State: closed - Opened by msporny over 5 years ago
- 2 comments
#30 - Add initial text to DID Document section.
Pull Request -
State: closed - Opened by msporny over 5 years ago
- 2 comments
#29 - Add section on identifiers to Data Model section.
Pull Request -
State: closed - Opened by msporny over 5 years ago
- 1 comment
#29 - Add section on identifiers to Data Model section.
Pull Request -
State: closed - Opened by msporny over 5 years ago
- 1 comment
#28 - Remove "Created" property section.
Pull Request -
State: closed - Opened by msporny over 5 years ago
- 19 comments
Labels: do not merge, metadata
#28 - Remove "Created" property section.
Pull Request -
State: closed - Opened by msporny over 5 years ago
- 19 comments
Labels: do not merge, metadata
#27 - Remove "Updated" property section.
Pull Request -
State: closed - Opened by msporny over 5 years ago
- 7 comments
Labels: do not merge, metadata
#27 - Remove "Updated" property section.
Pull Request -
State: closed - Opened by msporny over 5 years ago
- 7 comments
Labels: do not merge, metadata
#26 - Remove "Proof" property section.
Pull Request -
State: closed - Opened by msporny over 5 years ago
- 16 comments
Labels: do not merge
#26 - Remove "Proof" property section.
Pull Request -
State: closed - Opened by msporny over 5 years ago
- 16 comments
Labels: do not merge
#25 - (Partially) Encrypting DID Documents
Issue -
State: closed - Opened by brentzundel over 5 years ago
- 6 comments
Labels: editorial, pending close
#25 - (Partially) Encrypting DID Documents
Issue -
State: closed - Opened by brentzundel over 5 years ago
- 6 comments
Labels: editorial, pending close
#24 - make publicKey section more explicit for understanding of DIDs reliance on public keys
Issue -
State: closed - Opened by brentzundel over 5 years ago
- 7 comments
Labels: discuss, pending close
#24 - make publicKey section more explicit for understanding of DIDs reliance on public keys
Issue -
State: closed - Opened by brentzundel over 5 years ago
- 7 comments
Labels: discuss, pending close
#23 - publicKeyJwk, publicKeyHex, publicKeyBase64, publicKeyBase58 missing from context.
Issue -
State: closed - Opened by brentzundel over 5 years ago
- 18 comments
Labels: discuss, extensibility
#23 - publicKeyJwk, publicKeyHex, publicKeyBase64, publicKeyBase58 missing from context.
Issue -
State: closed - Opened by brentzundel over 5 years ago
- 18 comments
Labels: discuss, extensibility
#22 - [Authentication] Is Authentication the correct mechanism for specifying the ownership of a Thing?
Issue -
State: closed - Opened by brentzundel over 5 years ago
- 3 comments
Labels: pending close
#22 - [Authentication] Is Authentication the correct mechanism for specifying the ownership of a Thing?
Issue -
State: closed - Opened by brentzundel over 5 years ago
- 3 comments
Labels: pending close
#21 - [DID Operations] "all the operations required of a CKMS" are not specified on the body of this section
Issue -
State: closed - Opened by brentzundel over 5 years ago
- 3 comments
Labels: editorial, pending close
#21 - [DID Operations] "all the operations required of a CKMS" are not specified on the body of this section
Issue -
State: closed - Opened by brentzundel over 5 years ago
- 3 comments
Labels: editorial, pending close
#20 - [Public Keys] re: referenced keys: Is multiple level recursion allowed?
Issue -
State: closed - Opened by brentzundel over 5 years ago
- 7 comments
Labels: discuss, pending close
#20 - [Public Keys] re: referenced keys: Is multiple level recursion allowed?
Issue -
State: closed - Opened by brentzundel over 5 years ago
- 7 comments
Labels: discuss, pending close
#19 - [Design Goals] all references to *identifier* management etc. should be changed to *DID Entity* management, etc.
Issue -
State: closed - Opened by brentzundel over 5 years ago
- 2 comments
Labels: discuss, pending close
#19 - [Design Goals] all references to *identifier* management etc. should be changed to *DID Entity* management, etc.
Issue -
State: closed - Opened by brentzundel over 5 years ago
- 2 comments
Labels: discuss, pending close
#18 - [PURPOSE OF THE SPECIFICATION] Is this draft specification trying to address too many topics when there should be more than 1 spec
Issue -
State: closed - Opened by brentzundel over 5 years ago
- 2 comments
Labels: discuss
#18 - [PURPOSE OF THE SPECIFICATION] Is this draft specification trying to address too many topics when there should be more than 1 spec
Issue -
State: closed - Opened by brentzundel over 5 years ago
- 2 comments
Labels: discuss
#17 - [Overview] "Because DIDs reside on a distributed ledger" - not true?
Issue -
State: closed - Opened by brentzundel over 5 years ago
- 3 comments
Labels: editorial
#17 - [Overview] "Because DIDs reside on a distributed ledger" - not true?
Issue -
State: closed - Opened by brentzundel over 5 years ago
- 3 comments
Labels: editorial
#16 - Are service endpoints transport layer or application layer specific?
Issue -
State: closed - Opened by brentzundel over 5 years ago
- 15 comments
Labels: editorial
#16 - Are service endpoints transport layer or application layer specific?
Issue -
State: closed - Opened by brentzundel over 5 years ago
- 15 comments
Labels: editorial
#15 - need rationale in spec for fully qualified DID references as the value of "id" fields
Issue -
State: closed - Opened by brentzundel over 5 years ago
- 19 comments
Labels: pending close
#15 - need rationale in spec for fully qualified DID references as the value of "id" fields
Issue -
State: closed - Opened by brentzundel over 5 years ago
- 19 comments
Labels: pending close
#14 - Standardize the key revocation list
Issue -
State: closed - Opened by brentzundel over 5 years ago
- 56 comments
Labels: pending close
#14 - Standardize the key revocation list
Issue -
State: closed - Opened by brentzundel over 5 years ago
- 56 comments
Labels: pending close
#13 - Allow DID documents to be retrieved using any URI scheme
Issue -
State: closed - Opened by brentzundel over 5 years ago
- 2 comments
Labels: pending close
#13 - Allow DID documents to be retrieved using any URI scheme
Issue -
State: closed - Opened by brentzundel over 5 years ago
- 2 comments
Labels: pending close
#12 - DID Method discovery mechanism requirement
Issue -
State: closed - Opened by brentzundel over 5 years ago
- 3 comments
Labels: discuss
#11 - What happens when you feed a did: URL to a URL resolver?
Issue -
State: closed - Opened by brentzundel over 5 years ago
- 2 comments
Labels: pending close
#10 - Explain RsaSignature2018
Issue -
State: closed - Opened by brentzundel over 5 years ago
- 15 comments
Labels: pending close
#9 - Replace RsaSignature2017 by a standard JWA signature
Issue -
State: closed - Opened by brentzundel over 5 years ago
- 8 comments
Labels: pending close
#8 - Leverage RFC7518 to specify cryptographic algorithms
Issue -
State: closed - Opened by brentzundel over 5 years ago
- 24 comments
Labels: pending close, needs special call, jose, keys
#7 - Leverage existing RFC7517 to specify cryptographic key
Issue -
State: closed - Opened by brentzundel over 5 years ago
- 6 comments
Labels: pending close
#6 - What happened to the "old" list of did-spec issues?
Issue -
State: closed - Opened by mwherman2000 over 5 years ago
- 2 comments
#5 - Where will the DID contexts(s) live?
Issue -
State: closed - Opened by dmitrizagidulin over 5 years ago
- 51 comments
Labels: pending close, extensibility
#4 - Figure out three fundamental roles of DIDs (controller, subject, XXX)
Issue -
State: closed - Opened by jandrieu over 5 years ago
- 41 comments
Labels: pr exists
#3 - Ensure that 'controller' and 'authenticate as' are clear in the spec
Issue -
State: closed - Opened by msporny over 5 years ago
Labels: editorial, pr exists
#2 - Rewrite Authentication section - controller is wrong
Issue -
State: closed - Opened by msporny over 5 years ago
- 21 comments
Labels: discuss, pr exists
#1 - Fragment identifier semantics are independent of URI scheme
Issue -
State: closed - Opened by burnburn over 5 years ago
- 29 comments
Labels: pr exists