Original thread: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dance/g0eSMxmZzb1ucsFtgkVkICV5Hh8/
I read https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-latour-dns-and-digital-trust-00.html Previously I had read: - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mayrhofer-did-dns/ - https://identity.foundation/.well-known/resources/did-configuration/ (I'm co-author) I don't understand the role that "example-issuer.ca" is playing in these records. Why is there a need to structure the record "key" to include CA information? Is https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-uta-rfc6125bis/ relevant to this conversation? I wanted to share some related work, from BlueSky: They support linking https://www.w3.org/TR/did-core/ to specific domains, this allows for the natural control of a domain to be used to establish the natural authority of an identifier, For example: dig -t txt _atproto.wyden.senate.gov | grep 'did=' | grep -o '"did=.*"' | jq -r 'split("=")[1]' https://github.com/w3c/did-spec-registries/pull/515 I would like to see a standard way to link decentralized identifiers to domains documented somewhere at IETF. Including UTA & SCITT in case there are folks with relevant comments. Regards, OS -- ORIE STEELE Chief Technology Officer www.transmute.industries <https://transmute.industries>
_______________________________________________ Uta mailing list Uta@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
