mark did:webplus as DIF recommended

[jrayback]

Mark did:webplus as DIF recommended.

[jrayback]

This PR indicates the beginning of the formal review period for did:webplus. The second deep dive was held on 12/3. It will end 60 days later on 2/3. Please add questions and comments here. @vdods , fyi.

[ottomorac]

Hello.

Whilst I believe the did method satisfies most requirements, we should get the W3C DID test suite sorted out first before approval.

I am following up with W3C folks to get this other PR from Victor approved.

w3c/did-test-suite#228

[vdods]

Thanks, Otto, I appreciate that!

[Hkdolts]

@vdods - is there any update with respect to extending did:webplus support to SHA3? Are you planning to present an update to the group any time soon?

[vdods]

Hi @Hkdolts -- progress is underway for the choice of hash function for each place a hash function is used, and SHA3 will be included. I'll post updates here, as well as mention them in the DIF WG call.

[ottomorac]

The did:webplus method has been added to the w3c test suite. Therefore I approve.

[vdods]

@ottomorac I think you mean did:webplus :)

[bumblefudge]

Suggested change

| `did:webplus` | [Specification](https://ledgerdomain.github.io/did-webplus-spec/) | Yes | [Yes](https://github.com/decentralized-identity/did-methods/blob/main/method-proposals/PROPOSAL-did-webplus.md) | [Pending](https://github.com/w3c/did-test-suite/pull/228) | [In Progress](https://github.com/LedgerDomain/did-webplus) | Yes | [1](https://github.com/LedgerDomain/did-webplus) | In Progress | [OCI](https://oc-i.org) | [Intro](https://us02web.zoom.us/rec/share/1jJ7EIXc72ARQTQLXK6PXV2-cq0oN7gWlDBXwzD-IkEXpRfnxyxpX2IBZ1rRU23U.saBYCUDcfR2tbKps), [Deep Dive 1](https://us02web.zoom.us/rec/share/aF-Oyy6vsSHTQVotgcMMpdxAMo_I0e3PyvFHl5Wrqy3PbLMsl283eXGb2OBGV0Dr.-f9s4l5thUU_4JpS), [Deep Dive 2](https://us02web.zoom.us/rec/share/6yRpfB0ZND2JdmmYr6oQz8kYfFturosnG5ohQKxLNS4UXy80VyLuerzeNppo2XQ-.E74fBnNUdLYo1HFM) | **Yes** |

| `did:webplus` | [Specification](https://ledgerdomain.github.io/did-webplus-spec/) | Yes | [Yes](https://github.com/decentralized-identity/did-methods/blob/main/method-proposals/PROPOSAL-did-webplus.md) | [Yes](https://github.com/w3c/did-test-suite/pull/228) | [In Progress](https://github.com/LedgerDomain/did-webplus/blob/c7ec8c5591124961f9f2c90d43aab66d72e2454e/did-webplus/urd/src/listen.rs#L6) | Yes | [1](https://github.com/LedgerDomain/did-webplus) | In Progress | [OCI](https://oc-i.org) | [Intro](https://us02web.zoom.us/rec/share/1jJ7EIXc72ARQTQLXK6PXV2-cq0oN7gWlDBXwzD-IkEXpRfnxyxpX2IBZ1rRU23U.saBYCUDcfR2tbKps), [Deep Dive 1](https://us02web.zoom.us/rec/share/aF-Oyy6vsSHTQVotgcMMpdxAMo_I0e3PyvFHl5Wrqy3PbLMsl283eXGb2OBGV0Dr.-f9s4l5thUU_4JpS), [Deep Dive 2](https://us02web.zoom.us/rec/share/6yRpfB0ZND2JdmmYr6oQz8kYfFturosnG5ohQKxLNS4UXy80VyLuerzeNppo2XQ-.E74fBnNUdLYo1HFM) | **Yes** |

[bumblefudge]

• Thanks to Otto, that Pending is now a Yes 😎
• the "in progress" is a little unconvincing on the Uniresolver driver so I linked directly into the relevant API in the current-commit code, for posterity 😅

[bumblefudge]

oops redundant with #81 my bad

[ottomorac]

Yes. I think Victor updated that here: #81

[peacekeeper]

I think I would prefer to not change the order of entries in the list, i.e. not move the recommended ones to the top of the list. If we leave the order of entries as-is, we can better preserves the history of which method started the process in which order, and it also helps to avoid merge conflicts.

But it's just a suggestion, no strong objection if others want to change the order.

[jrayback]

I think I would prefer to not change the order of entries in the list, i.e. not move the recommended ones to the top of the list. If we leave the order of entries as-is, we can better preserves the history of which method started the process in which order, and it also helps to avoid merge conflicts.

But it's just a suggestion, no strong objection if others want to change the order.

It was decided in the working group meeting of 21 Jan 26 to reformat the table this way. Let's review in the next meeting to validate. If the group wants to go back, we can do so.

[TallTed]

@jrayback — Please be careful about ambiguous date formats like 21 Jan 26. I strongly advise using 4 digits for the year, 21 Jan 2026, and considering ISO format 2026-01-21.

[vdods]

@Hkdolts Support for the following hash functions has been added everywhere a hash function is used in a did:webplus-specific way, so that it's possible to choose whichever hash function is deemed appropriate.

Previously supported:

• Blake3
• SHA-256
• SHA-512

Added:

• SHA-224
• SHA-384
• SHA3-224
• SHA3-256
• SHA3-384
• SHA3-512

[Hkdolts]

@Hkdolts Support for the following hash functions has been added everywhere a hash function is used in a did:webplus-specific way, so that it's possible to choose whichever hash function is deemed appropriate.

Previously supported:

• Blake3
• SHA-256
• SHA-512

Added:

• SHA-224
• SHA-384
• SHA3-224
• SHA3-256
• SHA3-384
• SHA3-512

Excellent - @vdods are you planning on presenting the updates to the WG soon?

[vdods]

@Hkdolts Here's a document showing use of each hash function across the board: https://github.com/LedgerDomain/did-webplus/blob/cee6751003c7f2f1597281f129adaaabacef5c62/doc/example-hash-function-selection.md

I'll mention this in the WG call this week.

[jrayback]

@vdods , what is the status of did:webplus and the Universal Resolver? We need this info for the findings doc.

[vdods]

@jrayback Uni resolver support is not yet finished. We're considering just making it part of the VDG service, since they basically play the same role.

[peacekeeper]

Does this method fulfill the "Multiple Impls" criterion?

[peacekeeper]

I think there are several requirements in the "DIF-recommended" process which are not yet met by this method, and potentially also some misunderstandings/disagreements about the process itself that should be addressed first.

[jrayback]

I think there are several requirements in the "DIF-recommended" process which are not yet met by this method, and potentially also some misunderstandings/disagreements about the process itself that should be addressed first.

This concern was not raised within the 60-review period and, by policy, cannot deter did:webplus from achieving recommended status. At the end of the formal review period, all open questions and concerns had been addressed. @peacekeeper , if you have any further concerns, may I please suggest you discuss with the other chairs before commenting here. Thanks!

[vdods]

Currently there is only the reference implementation, which implements the whole did:webplus spec.

[TallTed]

Currently there is only the reference implementation, which implements the whole did:webplus spec.

So, there's no known interop?

Nor demonstration nor confirmation that the did:webplus specification can be interoperably implemented by anyone other than the reference implementors?

I see....