- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2018 14:29:47 -0400
- To: public-credentials@w3.org
On 06/01/2018 03:37 PM, Jordan, John CITZ:EX wrote: > I don’t think we need a single identifier like we have been trying to > unsuccessfully have in some places for years. I feel like those > numbers are a bad side effect of centralized database primary keys. Agreed. > I think the reason I am quite resistant to a single identifier (if > that is what is being contemplated) for an organization is that in > the real world stuff happens. It was not what was being contemplated nor proposed, but I can see how one could interpret the use case as such, so we should make it clear that organizations/entities are expected to have more than one DID. I said an "Organization gets a DID"... that doesn't mean its the /only DID/ the organization has. This group has identified the "single long lived identifier / single entity" (e.g. SSN, DUNS, email address for identification) design as a privacy concern in the VC spec here: https://w3c.github.io/vc-data-model/#identifier-based-correlation and here: https://w3c.github.io/vc-data-model/#long-lived-identifier-based-correlation We list the "desirable ecosystem characteristics" that we want here: https://w3c.github.io/vc-data-model/#use-cases-and-requirements So the change that needs to be made to the Decentralized Corporate Identifiers use case is: Clarify that organizations will have more than one DID, typically scoped appropriately to the interactions that they will perform using the DID. -- manu -- Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny) Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. blog: The State of W3C Web Payments in 2017 http://manu.sporny.org/2017/w3c-web-payments/
Received on Saturday, 2 June 2018 18:30:24 UTC