- From: Bill Barnhill <w.a.barnhill@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2019 12:22:29 -0400
- 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