rfc: forge network service identities - #16
Conversation
| - `did:web:staging.upload.fil-forge.com` (Sprue) | ||
| - `did:web:staging.indexer.fil-forge.com` (Indexing Service) | ||
| - `did:web:staging.signer.fil-forge.com` (Signing Service) | ||
| - `did:web:staging.delegator.fil-forge.com` (Delegator) | ||
| - `did:web:staging.auth.fil-forge.com` (Hilt) | ||
| - `did:web:staging.revoke.fil-forge.com` (Swarf) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We are currently using <service>.staging.<DOMAIN> format, so that all staging services share the same higher-level domain name. What are the benefits of the proposed format staging.<service>.<DOMAIN>?
|
|
||
| We run these services in staging but typically they are run by a 3rd party: | ||
|
|
||
| - `did:web:staging.us-west-1.s3.fil-forge.com` (Ingot) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
FWIW, we don't use fil-one domain names for the S3 endpoints in staging, we are using the orchestrator's domain name (https://s3.dev.aur.lu or https://us-east-1.fortilyx.com).
Having wrote that, I think it would be nice to use the FilOne/Forge domain for the staging S3 endpoint.
|
|
||
| ### Staging | ||
|
|
||
| - `did:web:staging.upload.fil-forge.com` (Sprue) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am curious: why fil-forge.com and not fil-one.com? (I don't have a strong opinion.)
| - `did:web:<REGION>.s3.<DOMAIN>` (Ingot) | ||
| - `did:key:z...` `https://piri.<DOMAIN>` (Piri) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Let's make it clear that <DOMAIN> is a different string on these two lines. (Isn't it?)
| - `did:web:<REGION>.s3.<DOMAIN>` (Ingot) | |
| - `did:key:z...` `https://piri.<DOMAIN>` (Piri) | |
| - `did:web:<REGION>.s3.<FORGE_DOMAIN>` (Ingot) | |
| - `did:key:z...` `https://piri.<PROVIDER_DOMAIN>` (Piri) |
2 participants
📖 Preview
Summary
Proposal for service identities/URLs in the Forge network.