Re: Prioritizing Individual Sovereignty over Interoperability

Related to this topic, is the proposed  "did:peer" ( []) method considered to be in the same non-decentralized camp as "did:facebook" and "did:google"?  While I get that "did:peer" is (intentionally) quite different from the globally resolvable did methods rooted in a blockchain, I think it is a crucial component of the decentralized identity landscape.

My thought it is a separate discussion from the "did:facebook" discussion, but one that should be had in the did spec community. If it is part of this topic, I would request commenters consider it so it is not lost in the "bigger tent" debate.

Stephen Curran
Principal, Cloud Compass Computing, Inc.
Hyperledger Technical Ambassador  -
Calendar: []
On 4/26/2019 11:46:12 AM, Markus Sabadello <> wrote:
Hello list,

In light of the discussions in the W3C CCG, DIF, and recent threads on
GitHub concerning proposed changes to the W3C DID spec (related to
"decentralization" and the "big tent" idea), Joachim Lohkamp (Jolocom),
Kai Wagner (Jolocom), Eugeniu Rusu (Jolocom), Sean Baldwin-Stevenson
(Jolocom) and myself (Danube Tech) have prepared an open statement and
call to action for the community.

We invite you to read, share, and add your perspectives on that blog
post with the aim of broadening the discussion and developing a more
comprehensive and rigorous assessment of how to address the challenge of
achieving interoperability without diminishing user sovereignty.

Even though I won't be at IIW, I know sessions around this topic will be
held, and I hope this statement will serve as useful input.


Received on Saturday, 27 April 2019 14:23:23 UTC