upstream wishlist item: public or objective verificiationMethod specification?

[bumblefudge]

on today's call, we discussed how useful it would be if the spec pointed to canonical references explaining the mechanics that would facilitate contributions from the community and new implementations. Even an upstream PR to explain BlockchainVerification2021 here might help:
https://or13.github.io/lds-blockchain2021/#blockchainAccountId

[bumblefudge]

Cf today's thread on the CCG list for context:
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2021Dec/0014.html

[bumblefudge]

Also note: the #blockchainAccountId and #blockchainVerification2021 context definitions both point to a security vocab w3id.org alias that redirects here, which is not very detailed:
https://or13.github.io/lds-blockchain2021/#blockchainAccountId

Perhaps at a later date, the group could propose an upstream PR and/or add some more explanatory text, whether in the spec or as a reference.

[bumblefudge]

See also this thread over at vc-api repo

[bumblefudge]

Found this thread on the DID-WG's public list explaining how straightforward the definition (in LD terms) of a vM is-- basically just a definition by example, a type registration, and a URL for context definition. Should we consider writing one in this group? NB @oed

[clehner]

Discussing on call...
BlockchainVerification2021 makes sense I think; also there is https://identity.foundation/EcdsaSecp256k1RecoverySignature2020/ which is specific to Secp256k1 but works well for verification against public key hashes because of using EC Recovery.

[clehner]

Mentioned on today's call (#28). @bumblefudge maybe we need your input here?

It may be relevant to note that BlockchainVerificationMethod2021 is not mentioned in https://w3c.github.io/vc-wg-charter/ - but EcdsaSecp256k1RecoverySignature2020 is being proposed to mention as a possible input document for rechartered VCWG (w3c/vc-wg-charter#105).

[bumblefudge]

Yes, glad this is in scope for VCWG; if they are specifying it (including the variant with the extra bit) then we could just leave this open as a tracking issue.