- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 09:10:50 -0400
- To: public-credentials@w3.org
On 10/19/2017 10:07 AM, Timothy Holborn wrote: > Did you consider starting a DID CG? We did discuss this. In the end, we didn't want to split the community and create yet more mailing lists that everyone had to track to stay up to speed. Just around every organization that we know of that are doing Verifiable Credentials are using DIDs for the subject identifier. Yes, it's possible to use any URI for the subject identifier in a Verifiable Credential, but I don't know of a single pilot or production deployment that is using regular HTTP-based URLs or e-mail addresses (the OBI folks /may/ be doing the latter?). So, that's the reason the DID work was approved as a work item in this group. > I think they're likely sufficiently different to WebIDs, and i think > they're sufficiently different from Verifiable Claims that in-turn > require identifiers (URIs ideally?). For some definition of WebIDs... DIDs are URLs that don't depend on the Domain Name system for resolution, but instead depend on other types of registries, DLTs being just one type... DHTs being another. DIDs are in this group because: * The same people working on Verifiable Claims are also working on DIDs. * We didn't want to unnecessarily split everyone's attention. -- manu -- Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny) Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. blog: Rebalancing How the Web is Built http://manu.sporny.org/2016/rebalancing/
Received on Friday, 20 October 2017 13:11:15 UTC