Re: Renaming "DID registry" to "DID ledger" (was: Re: New iteration of the DID Use Cases document)

-1

If if walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, even if you don’t like ducks… But in this case if you’re talking about where the DID itself is recorded and can be looked up, you really mean “DID Storage”. A ledger is just one form of information storage, and while I get that it’s a word that gets the VC’s all hot and bothered it’s disingenuous to tie to it. A “registry” is far more accurate but, as discussed on here, the fact that the registration of the DID is localized to the resolution mechanism and its target system (or network) doesn’t carry the same connotations. So if we’re talking about where you put a DID when you make it, I say we call it storage.

While we’re here, there’s the related question of the registry for the mechanisms for DID resolution. The DID document is vehement that it is not a registry, but then points to a document that lists all options known at the time. This is, in name and in fact, a centralized registry. Yes, you can ignore the registry of other mechanisms if you don’t care about it — but all registries can be ignored by implementations and that doesn’t make it any less of a centralized registry. In fact, the DID resolution methods document fits the IANA model of “designated expert review” pretty well, with the designated expert recently mandating “spec required” on the list here. I think it does us no favors to pretend it’s anything but what it is.

— Justin

On Feb 18, 2019, at 6:39 PM, =Drummond Reed <drummond.reed@evernym.com<mailto:drummond.reed@evernym.com>> wrote:

On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 3:30 PM Kim Hamilton Duffy <kim@learningmachine.com<mailto:kim@learningmachine.com>> wrote:
> So I strongly believe that the sooner we fix this naming issue, the sooner we stop sending the wrong message to potential adopters about how DIDs actually work.

I definitely agree sooner is better...if people are down for this exercise right now, I'm not stopping anyone

Cool. All in favor of moving from "DID registry" to "DID ledger", please +1.

If you strongly feel you have a better alternative, please advance that.


On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 3:26 PM =Drummond Reed <drummond.reed@evernym.com<mailto:drummond.reed@evernym.com>> wrote:
Kim, while I agree that it would be good to avoid a naming exercise right now, in fact a term was recently suggested to me that IMHO would be infinitely better than "DID registry". It is simply "DID ledger".

Note that the term "DID ledger" does not say "distributed ledger" or "blockchain" or anything that would imply that DID technology could only be written to one of those types of systems. In fact, "DID ledger" doesn't even mean that the ledger is decentralized.

What "DID ledger" DOES capture however is the idea that the DID controller writes the DID to the ledger. In all cases with DIDs, that's what happens (whether the DID is actually initially created entirely independent of the ledger, as with Sovrin DIDs, or it is created via the write transaction to the ledger, as with BTCR DIDs).

And that of course is exactly the OPPOSITE of what happens with "registries". The essence of the problem with the word "registry" is that it is always the registry that controls the rights to the identifier, not the registrant.

So I strongly believe that the sooner we fix this naming issue, the sooner we stop sending the wrong message to potential adopters about how DIDs actually work.

=D

On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 2:58 PM Kim Hamilton Duffy <kim@learningmachine.com<mailto:kim@learningmachine.com>> wrote:
I'm not sure we'll get a better candidate in the near future, but ditto on the problems caused by the use of the term "DID registry".

In fact, after my presentation at W3C Strong Authentication and Identity Workshop, I decided not to use that term unless I have ample time to qualify/caveat what it means.

At minimum, if we just mark it (perhaps create an issue) to revisit, that would probably be fine. Not sure we're in the mood for a naming exercise at the moment.

But also +1 to the improvements in this use case document. Great job Joe!

On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 8:37 PM =Drummond Reed <drummond.reed@evernym.com<mailto:drummond.reed@evernym.com>> wrote:
On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 8:01 AM Joe Andrieu <joe@legreq.com<mailto:joe@legreq.com>> wrote:
Folks,

Based on the feedback from the call Tuesday, I have updated the DID Use Cases document.

https://w3c-ccg.github.io/did-use-cases/


Please take a look and provide feedback. Please use the mailing list for general discussion and Github issues for specific places where the  spec text could use improvement. Pull requests appreciated if you have suggestions for improvements.

Joe, this is a big improvement. Thanks for doing this. I have some wording suggestions but unfortunately will probably not have time until RWOT to submit them, and they are minor anyway.

One terminology question, however: this is the first doc I've seen using the term "DID registry". While I get why that term seems attractive—it's the best analogy to the existing world of registries (especially DNS registries), I have avoided it all this time because the process of writing a DID to what the spec used to call a "target system" is SO different than conventional registries which ALWAYS involve centralization. This is true for every single target system I'm aware of. That's the whole point of decentralized systems—they don't involve the same power dynamics as centralized registries.

So I'm just wondering if the term "DID registries" has become established or if we can use a better term that reflects the unique nature of DIDs.


The key difference in this iteration is the addition of an extended discussion of what you can do with a DID and the 13 DID actions I've distilled from our conversations over the last couple of years. Hopefully this addition helps both with the big picture and gives concrete functionality.

Note that not all DID Actions are supported by all methods and not all will be specified in the DID spec. However, these actions have informed the design of DIDs and hence represent the aspirations of the eventual system based on DIDs.

Agreed. I like the section on DID Actions very much, though I do have a few suggestions to clarify some of them. I'll see if I can get that to you before RWOT.


--
Kim Hamilton Duffy
CTO & Principal Architect Learning Machine
Co-chair W3C Credentials Community Group

kim@learningmachine.com<mailto:kim@learningmachine.com>

--
Kim Hamilton Duffy
CTO & Principal Architect Learning Machine
Co-chair W3C Credentials Community Group

kim@learningmachine.com<mailto:kim@learningmachine.com>