Confusion regarding threshold for DID controllers

[Vishwas1]

Was reading this section of DID core,

https://www.w3.org/TR/did-core/#group-control

In the case of group control, the DID controllers are expected to act together in some fashion, such as when using a cryptographic algorithm that requires multiple digital signatures ("multi-sig") or a threshold number of digital signatures ("m-of-n").

I am confused about, where exactly we will specific that policy m-of-n or m-of-m or whatever in the DID document?

[OR13]

@Vishwas1 Only certain DID Methods might support this feature, for example, a method based on ethereum multi sig.

[kdenhartog]

I can understand the confusion here. This would effectively need to be defined under the method which specifies a verification method suite for using a multi sig and then also defining how the DID document will model the data of this, and also how the VDR will verify this data using the DID Document. In this case, all of these are extension features so there really shouldn't have been mention of this in DID Core.

[decentralgabe]

The group discussed and agreed language should be improved on leaving this up to DID Methods / where the policy should be defined.

[w3cbot]

This was discussed during the #did meeting on 06 December 2024.

View the transcript

w3c/did-core#839

decentralgabe: This is about how to specify multisig -- need to clarify?

decentralgabe: Doesn't say where logic is defined, keep open and improve language.

<shigeya> +1

manu: Yes, that sounds good.

---

[peacekeeper]

There is a verification method type which can do this: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/verifiable-conditions

[w3cbot]

This was discussed during the #did meeting on 19 December 2024.

View the transcript

w3c/did-core#839

manu: we don't define how you do mutisig in the DID spec.
… We should probably say that multisig is defined by the verification mechanism.

<JoeAndrieu> +1 to Manu's summary

manu: We should add some language pointing to verification methods and cryptosuite, and not say anything more.

markus_sabadello: there is a verification that some people have worked one, "conditional proof" or something like that.
… It is a CCG work item, I will link it to this issue.
… And I can take care of this issue.

---