Re: DID Spec Closure Process: Cryptographic Key Material Proposals for the DID Specification

On 2017-12-20 12:26 AM, =Drummond Reed wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 9:54 AM, Steven Rowat 
> <steven_rowat@sunshine.net <mailto:steven_rowat@sunshine.net>> wrote:

>     Drummond & all,
> 
>     TL;DR:  Include Use-cases in comparison?
> 
> 
> Steven, great point. I added it to the template, and in fact added one 
> example use case for the first proposal listed ("Simple Flat Array of 
> Key Description Objects").
> 
> I'm hoping others who have proposals can add them tomorrow in advance 
> of our final DID Spec Closure call of the year on Thursday morning 
> (10AM PT; reminder details will be sent to the list).

Thank you.
But I must apologize for not being clear.

The kind of use-cases I had in mind were END-user cases, in which DID 
would be the primary facilitator of the transaction system.

Examples:
1. A doctor managing patient health records or prescriptions.
2. A publisher of books managing author payment and copyrights.
3. A whistleblower providing sensitive data who needs to be anonymous.
4. A consumer purchasing a widget across the internet who wishes only 
to provide limited data about themselves.

I wish to try to understand whether the DID cryptography schemes under 
consideration would limit those use-cases differently.

More specifically for my own interest (others may have other focuses),
Will any of the following be different:

The subject's *data privacy*?
The subject's access to *pseudo-anonymity*?
The subject's ability to *accept payment* for digital services?

IMO that is the kind of comparison that will be useful to many of 
those who are going to eventually use the DID system.

And if there will be no substantial difference in any of them, then 
I'd be happy to know that too. :-)


Steven

> 
> =Drummond
> 
> 
>     Longer:
> 
>     I agree that this Google doc seems like a good way to make a
>     comparison between DID structure choices that may have a long-term
>     effect. I look forward to seeing the others filled in.
> 
>     However, in that document shouldn't there be some reference to
>     use-cases, since, AFAIK, they are potentially impacted by the choice?
> 
>     Specifically, how would any proposal make it easier or harder for
>     even a single major use-case (like the refugee migration
>     documents) to be achieved? Or even better, perhaps three or four
>     representative use-cases?
> 
>     Or at very least, put a direct mention in the "Rationale" section
>     that variable ability to achieve use-cases should be considered
>     and noted?
> 
>     IMO it's the one thing everything on the list shares; when this
>     DID system is up and running, what use-cases will it be able to
>     perform...or not perform?
> 
>     Steven
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 20 December 2017 17:50:57 UTC