W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > August 2019

Identity Hubs and Agents

From: Bill Barnhill <w.a.barnhill@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2019 12:22:29 -0400
Message-ID: <CALRLx1ivGE9N6ar1KJkVAzKS9TUzBz+6yCnF9ks8hTwJmWaCJQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "W3C Credentials CG (Public List)" <public-credentials@w3.org>
I went through the Identity Hubs presentation, and the Medium article.

Though I'm not as versed in Identity Hubs as many of you, I want to
comment on a couple of things.

First,  I proposed we talk about two types of agents when we talk
about identity agents. The first type are the first-class agents that
act as fiduciaries for their user, have wallet root keys, etc. The
second type are offline proxy agents, that act on behalf of the user
when the user is offline, but have more limited privileges. These can
automatically provide collections managed by a user when that user is
not online, verify claims on behalf of the user, etc.  This second
type is distinct enough it might warrant a second Hyperledger project,
but the Hyperledger folks would be a better judge of that than me. If
so, perhaps a suitable name might be Gemini (i.e., the offline digital
twin agent).

Second, I agree Identity Hub use is a useful set of use cases, but I'd
also like to see a pure agent-based set of use cases allowed. Instead
of an Identity Hub managing a user's information for offline retrieval
you could have a proxy agent run by an agent host (think a Digital
Ocean Aries Agent droplet, for example).  We should support the people
who want to use the simplest solution and might gravitate to using an
Identity Hub, but I also think we should support the people that want
full decentralization via interacting agents (i.e., a digital
community as a collection of people and the the digital mesh of their
agents acting together).
Received on Tuesday, 13 August 2019 16:23:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:24:55 UTC