You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Perhaps it is enough, but I’m not sure…. That’s what we stated we would do in the original witness design.
That means that a witnesses for the last version are the de facto witnesses for all of the versions in the file. As we have defined it now, the actual witnesses for each version are retained — with the witnesses themselves asserting their approval of all prior versions they witnessed. The transitive approval is already being used — is it OK across witnesses?
It does get trickier the witness process can be disabled as discussed in #140. In that case, does the DID Witness file go away, or do we keep the file with the witnesses for the last witnessed version of the DID?
It does get trickier the witness process can be disabled as discussed in https://github.com/decentralized-identity/trustdidweb/issues/140. In that case, does the DID Witness file go away, or do we keep the file with the witnesses for the last witnessed version of the DID?
All the previous witness rules still have to be satisfied by the witness file, for the log line where they take effect or a later one, even if there aren't currently any required witnesses (assuming we allow that to be turned off). So no I don't think you would ever remove the witness file, although you wouldn't need to keep updating it.
The following question came up in the review of PR #136.
@PatStLouis : Does it make sense to instead only keep the proofs about the two most recent log update entries?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: