Re: Ideas about DID explanation

I like this list. It's a good summary. I just wanted to comment on nuances
of 3 of them.


> 5) includes the associated DID Document, which may contain material used
> to authenticate the DID, the DID Document, and the DID 'owner/controller'
>

I have run into this sort of verbiage before, that a DID "includes" a DID
Document. I think the phrase "is associated with" or "may be associated
with" is more accurate. A DID that has been created but not yet written to
anywhere that associates it with a DID Document is still a DID, is it not?

a) DID authentication may use cryptographic proofs to demonstrate which
> entity is the 'owner/controller'.
>

Using the "owner" metaphor for DIDs has some interesting legal baggage; we
might be better served to favor "controller." See
https://medium.com/@hackylawyER/do-we-really-want-to-sell-ourselves-the-risks-of-a-property-law-paradigm-for-data-ownership-b217e42edffa


> b) When cryptographic proofs for DID authentication are used, this enables
> special properties associated with zero knowledge proofs such as selective
> disclosure, <<what is this list?>>
>

I don't think ZKPs have anything inherent to do with DIDs or DID
authentication, or that DIDs do anything special to enable selective
disclosure--unless you're talking pairwise DIDs to manage correlation. DIDs
may be used in conjunction with ZKPs and selective disclosure, but I don't
think either requires the other. Is there some connection here that I'm not
considering?


>