Comply with the new DID ABNF

[mrinalwadhwa]

There is ongoing discussion around updating the DID ABNF that we would need to update the parser for

w3c-ccg/did-spec#168
https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c-ccg/did-spec/pull/168.html

[mrinalwadhwa]

The DID part looks unaffected.
https://github.com/ockam-network/did/blob/bdd1431c112d9fe2579a0d4ae73e680d196146b6/did.abnf#L10-L16

[mrinalwadhwa]

did-reference will need some tweaks.

https://github.com/ockam-network/did/blob/bdd1431c112d9fe2579a0d4ae73e680d196146b6/did.abnf#L8

https://github.com/ockam-network/did/blob/bdd1431c112d9fe2579a0d4ae73e680d196146b6/did.abnf#L20-L31

[mrinalwadhwa]

did-fragment is also likely unaffected

[petersng]

Hi, just wondering if this will be updated at some point? Seems like this project has been somewhat abandoned while the DID spec has been updated to 1.0. I've been using this lib to parse and validate my DIDs and it has been working great, except for when I encounter new characters that weren't in the ABNF before. I could submit a simple patch for my case if that helps as I prob wouldn't have time to work on completely updating the spec.

This code works great otherwise, thanks!

[mrinalwadhwa]

Hi @petersng. Glad you found the code useful ❤️
We don't have an immediate need to update so this its low on priority list ... however we would love to get a PR if you or anyone else is interested in working on updating it.

[hollyfeld]

Hi @mrinalwadhwa. I'm not too far off from having a pull request for this, but I do have a couple of questions first:

1. In the current DID String method, Fragment is only serialized to the string when a Path does not exist. I don't see that restriction in the grammar, and it looks like a did-reference with a Path, Query, and Fragment will parse, but a subsequent call to String on the DID would lose the Fragment data.

Am I reading this wrong, or is there some other reason etc.? Please clarify.

https://github.com/ockam-network/did/blob/863346eac7086a346625dfaf4c461326b2da7cf4/did.go#L101-L105

2. I've added some parserStep methods that model the existing steps. The code to set the next parserStep gets a bit redundant. A possible solution would be to extract out a method that takes a bitmask with options for transitioning, along with a lambda for validation. Then each parser step configures as needed.

Let me know what you think. I can finish up the current approach and push up and then decide if #2 is worth the effort. Thanks!

[mrinalwadhwa]

Hey @hollyfeld that is awesome! I haven't read the did spec in a some months. I'll give it a quick refresher this afternoon and come back to you with answers. Thank you for working on a PR.

[hollyfeld]

Hi @mrinalwadhwa,

I went ahead and generated a PR here. On the previous questions, I went ahead and removed the constraint on not allowing a fragment when a path or segments exist.

The second item I would just ignore. I looked at it again and it didn't seem worth the trouble.
Thanks!

[mrinalwadhwa]

Awesome. Thank you 🙏. I'll read through the changes tonight.

[mrinalwadhwa]

@hollyfeld Thank you for sending the PR, it's merged! 🎉