W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > November 2017

Re: A question about design goals for DID architecture

From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 10:06:50 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKaEYh+m9opsqxZjHpboHn-RXXjc+NVrP9SX2duXG47krCRtfQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Karan Verma <karanverma@alumni.stanford.edu>
Cc: W3C Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
On 25 November 2017 at 01:03, Karan Verma <karanverma@alumni.stanford.edu>
wrote:

> Hi
>
> Section 1.2 of the DID architecture document here
> <https://w3c-ccg.github.io/did-spec/> lists Decentralizations and
> Self-Sovereignty as its first two different design goals.
>
> Is there an identity management scheme which is decentralized but not self
> sovereign OR self-sovereign but not decentralized? If not, would it be
> better to merge Decentralization & Self Sovereignty into a single design
> goal?
>

In a sense they are already merged.  If you look through the lens of, "an
identifier is a URI".  Which I think aligns with most Web philosiphy.

So you can have (just as examples)

did: URIs -- content addressable / self sovereign
http: URIs -- e.g. Webid [1] -- large network effect / easily derferencable
/ tooling
mailto: URIs -- ie email -- large network effect / communication channel /
memorable

And the list is also extensible, based on use cases and adoption.

[1] https://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/spec/identity/


>
> Best,
> Karan
>
Received on Tuesday, 28 November 2017 09:07:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 July 2018 21:19:42 UTC