Question: Rely on CAIP-2/10 for Namespace and Chain ID

[jdsika]

In the example of the readme you define the ID as:
"id": "did:tz:delphinet:tz1WvvbEGpBXGeTVbLiR6DYBe1izmgiYuZbq",

I am wondering if it might be more consistent to change it to the chain agnostic specification see my draft PR.
CAIP-2 for Chain ID
CAIP-10 for account id

In this case there are two options where the use of an "alias" is not recommended without an external chain registry

"id": "did:tezos:mainnet:tz1WvvbEGpBXGeTVbLiR6DYBe1izmgiYuZbq",
"id": "did:tezos:NetXdQprcVkpaWU:tz1WvvbEGpBXGeTVbLiR6DYBe1izmgiYuZbq",

Most wallet use the Octez --network configurations as alias for the two networks "ghostnet" and "mainnet" but the others change regularily and therefore the use of the actual chain ID might be more useful. Also if we consider that we might have the situation in which we need to resolve the public key by looking up the reveal operation on-chain.

Looking forward to your feedback.

Best regards
Carlo

[jdsika]

I see it is defined that way for the did:pkh method: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/did-pkh/blob/main/did-pkh-method-draft.md#syntax-and-interpretation