- From: =Drummond Reed <drummond.reed@evernym.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 16:50:44 -0800
- To: Kim Hamilton Duffy <kim@learningmachine.com>
- Cc: "Jordan, John CITZ:EX" <John.Jordan@gov.bc.ca>, Joe Andrieu <joe@legreq.com>, Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAAjunnbRgCZ8YPX=FwZfedHxNAnofJ6Wid=JhXXpch2n7c-enA@mail.gmail.com>
I'm fine with discussing this at Rebooting. On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 4:45 PM Kim Hamilton Duffy <kim@learningmachine.com> wrote: > tl;dr discussion not votes (yet) > > I should clarify -- I meant we should *discuss* now, but not actually > call for a vote at the moment. I confirmed with another chair we are not > ready, and in fact adding any more potential hurdles (no matter how small) > to the use case document (which *is* urgent) is not desirable. > > We'll be able to follow up under calmer circumstances at Rebooting, which > is not too far in the future. For those who can't attend, this mailing list > discussion would be helpful to unearth ideas (until then). > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 3:50 PM Jordan, John CITZ:EX < > John.Jordan@gov.bc.ca> wrote: > >> +1 >> >> On Feb 18, 2019, at 15:40, =Drummond Reed <drummond.reed@evernym.com >> <mailto:drummond.reed@evernym.com>> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 3:30 PM Kim Hamilton Duffy < >> kim@learningmachine.com<mailto:kim@learningmachine.com>> wrote: >> > So I strongly believe that the sooner we fix this naming issue, the >> sooner we stop sending the wrong message to potential adopters about how >> DIDs actually work. >> >> I definitely agree sooner is better...if people are down for this >> exercise right now, I'm not stopping anyone >> >> Cool. All in favor of moving from "DID registry" to "DID ledger", please >> +1. >> >> If you strongly feel you have a better alternative, please advance that. >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 3:26 PM =Drummond Reed <drummond.reed@evernym.com >> <mailto:drummond.reed@evernym.com>> wrote: >> Kim, while I agree that it would be good to avoid a naming exercise right >> now, in fact a term was recently suggested to me that IMHO would be >> infinitely better than "DID registry". It is simply "DID ledger". >> >> Note that the term "DID ledger" does not say "distributed ledger" or >> "blockchain" or anything that would imply that DID technology could only be >> written to one of those types of systems. In fact, "DID ledger" doesn't >> even mean that the ledger is decentralized. >> >> What "DID ledger" DOES capture however is the idea that the DID >> controller writes the DID to the ledger. In all cases with DIDs, that's >> what happens (whether the DID is actually initially created entirely >> independent of the ledger, as with Sovrin DIDs, or it is created via the >> write transaction to the ledger, as with BTCR DIDs). >> >> And that of course is exactly the OPPOSITE of what happens with >> "registries". The essence of the problem with the word "registry" is that >> it is always the registry that controls the rights to the identifier, not >> the registrant. >> >> So I strongly believe that the sooner we fix this naming issue, the >> sooner we stop sending the wrong message to potential adopters about how >> DIDs actually work. >> >> =D >> >> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 2:58 PM Kim Hamilton Duffy < >> kim@learningmachine.com<mailto:kim@learningmachine.com>> wrote: >> I'm not sure we'll get a better candidate in the near future, but ditto >> on the problems caused by the use of the term "DID registry". >> >> In fact, after my presentation at W3C Strong Authentication and Identity >> Workshop, I decided not to use that term unless I have ample time to >> qualify/caveat what it means. >> >> At minimum, if we just mark it (perhaps create an issue) to revisit, that >> would probably be fine. Not sure we're in the mood for a naming exercise at >> the moment. >> >> But also +1 to the improvements in this use case document. Great job Joe! >> >> On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 8:37 PM =Drummond Reed <drummond.reed@evernym.com >> <mailto:drummond.reed@evernym.com>> wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 8:01 AM Joe Andrieu <joe@legreq.com<mailto: >> joe@legreq.com>> wrote: >> Folks, >> >> Based on the feedback from the call Tuesday, I have updated the DID Use >> Cases document. >> >> https://w3c-ccg.github.io/did-use-cases/ >> >> Please take a look and provide feedback. Please use the mailing list for >> general discussion and Github issues for specific places where the spec >> text could use improvement. Pull requests appreciated if you have >> suggestions for improvements. >> >> Joe, this is a big improvement. Thanks for doing this. I have some >> wording suggestions but unfortunately will probably not have time until >> RWOT to submit them, and they are minor anyway. >> >> One terminology question, however: this is the first doc I've seen using >> the term "DID registry". While I get why that term seems attractive—it's >> the best analogy to the existing world of registries (especially DNS >> registries), I have avoided it all this time because the process of writing >> a DID to what the spec used to call a "target system" is SO different than >> conventional registries which ALWAYS involve centralization. This is true >> for every single target system I'm aware of. That's the whole point of >> decentralized systems—they don't involve the same power dynamics as >> centralized registries. >> >> So I'm just wondering if the term "DID registries" has become established >> or if we can use a better term that reflects the unique nature of DIDs. >> >> >> The key difference in this iteration is the addition of an extended >> discussion of what you can do with a DID and the 13 DID actions I've >> distilled from our conversations over the last couple of years. Hopefully >> this addition helps both with the big picture and gives concrete >> functionality. >> >> Note that not all DID Actions are supported by all methods and not all >> will be specified in the DID spec. However, these actions have informed the >> design of DIDs and hence represent the aspirations of the eventual system >> based on DIDs. >> >> Agreed. I like the section on DID Actions very much, though I do have a >> few suggestions to clarify some of them. I'll see if I can get that to you >> before RWOT. >> >> >> -- >> Kim Hamilton Duffy >> CTO & Principal Architect Learning Machine >> Co-chair W3C Credentials Community Group >> >> kim@learningmachine.com<mailto:kim@learningmachine.com> >> >> -- >> Kim Hamilton Duffy >> CTO & Principal Architect Learning Machine >> Co-chair W3C Credentials Community Group >> >> kim@learningmachine.com<mailto:kim@learningmachine.com> >> > -- > Kim Hamilton Duffy > CTO & Principal Architect Learning Machine > Co-chair W3C Credentials Community Group > > kim@learningmachine.com >
Received on Tuesday, 19 February 2019 00:51:19 UTC