PROPOSAL: Universal values for a *null DID* as well as an *empty DID*

[mwherman2000]

These concepts are very common place in the world of software development today.

e.g. null string = 0; empty string = "";
e.g. null array = 0; empty array = [];

PROPOSAL: Universal values for a null DID as well as an empty DID (universal => DID Method independent):

null DID = "did:0";
empty DID = "did:";

including pre-defined functions like: bool nullempty = Did.IsNullOrEmpty(someDIDvalue);

Any other ideas/proposals?

Michael Herman
Web 7.0™ / TDW AgenticOS™

[davidlehn]

There's a spec and specific implementation for the did:null method:

• https://digitalbazaar.github.io/did-method-null-spec/
• https://github.com/digitalbazaar/did-method-null

The entire concept was rejected from the registry:

• Add did:null method. did-extensions#431
• Add did:null method. did-extensions#555

Maybe I'll refresh and try again on April 1. :-)

did:0 and did: are not valid based on the DID spec. I saw no reason to challenge that and picked did:null:null for naming as it seemed to best align with web platform terminology and DID spec expectations. I figured character counts were not really important. Mostly because the idea was either as a joke or as something real that is simple and static that does nothing but could be used for a minimal base case for test suites or checking validators or something.

[mwherman2000]

@davidlehn Thank you for engaging. Your comment suggest an alternative. This is no joke.

did:constant:null
did:constant:empty

[mwherman2000]

@davidlehn Extending the list...

did:constant:null
did:constant:empty
did:constant:true
did:constant:false
did:constant:yes
did:constant:no
did:constant:na
did:constant:a
did:constant:b
did:constant:c
...
did:constant:z
did:constant:sunny
...
did:constant:clear
did:constant:happy
...
did:constant:wink

[wip-abramson]

Thanks for the proposal @mwherman2000.

Unfortunately, there are a number of reasons why this proposal is unlikely to get support from the DIDWG.

First, the DID specification is in maintenance mode at the moment meaning only up to class three changes can be made to the spec. No new features are allowed. This would be a new feature. So at best, it would have to wait until the DIDWG is rechartered to work on a version 2 of the DID spec.

Second, I am not clear on the use case justifying these universal values you are proposing. For any feature to be seriously considered for addition to the DID specification we would need to see clear demand from multiple stakeholders as well as justification for why it should be included within the core DID spec.

The entire concept was rejected from the registry:

As @davidlehn highlights, the DIDWG previously has not shown much enthusiasm for such a method. Neither have implementers, to my knowledge, been asking for such a DID method independent feature to be standardized.

That said, I assume you have a need / usecases for did:constant:null or similar. There is nothing stopping you from pursuing these within your own context. Even add another DID method to the W3C list if you wish. Then if others also recognize the need for this, they can adopt your approach.

I am failing to see why this belongs in the DID specification, even if we were chartered to make such a change.