- From: Markus Sabadello <markus@danubetech.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 05:54:22 +0100
- To: public-credentials@w3.org
- Message-ID: <edb20ba0-02a7-8015-cb1a-5276d9908001@danubetech.com>
Also -1 I think, "ledger" won't work for IPFS-based DIDs, or public-keys-wrapped-as-DIDs, or potentially many other DID methods; it doesn't feel broad enough. Personally I also don't like the separation between "creating" and "writing" / "registering" a DID. This separation is something I have seen in Sovrin docs and discussions several times, but I think it's better to have a mental model where you have only one step for "creating" the DID. E.g. in Sovrin, you may create a wallet and a key pair as a preparatory step, but you haven't actually "created" your DID until you also write it to the ledger, because only then it becomes possible to "resolve" it. Markus On 2/19/19 12:39 AM, =Drummond Reed 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> >
Received on Tuesday, 19 February 2019 04:54:51 UTC