On 2021-12-20 1:25 pm, Melvin Carvalho wrote: > > > With DID's it seems that things are more mixed. Some of the sub protocols or methods in the registry are proprietary security tokens with the aim of monetizing the protocol > > It would be good to clarify the extent to which did methods can be neutral decentralized protocols, vs centralized, proprietary and monetizable +1 Melvin. This seems very well worded. I think the problem I was having understanding DID:object in the other thread ([Re: Announcement: New DID Method Specification: did:object]) comes down to this difference. If it isn't clear which camp a 'method' is in, there's going to be confusion. Perhaps there need to be two levels of 'method'; a higher one that is the neutral protocol, and then one a step down that can be proprietary (or not). In other words, the current DID Registry may be mixing those at present, and they should be carefully separated, and after that clear instructions given how to make one or the other. So that, say (I'm just grabbing random ones that I don't know much about really :-) ), the top level ones might be did:web and did:key, and so on; technical ones that everybody uses. Then below these would be the local, specific, and/or proprietary ones, that could be supported by a single company, or depend on a single company's code. But, by design, none of the top ones would be able to depend on a centralized body/corporation. After this, perhaps my (and others?) confusion or concerns about registering DID:object wouldn't happen. Or at least, the lines of argument would be clearer. ? Steven Rowat
Received on Monday, 20 December 2021 22:32:05 UTC