W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > December 2021

Re: DID Formal Objection Status Update (Dec 2021)

From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2021 09:45:39 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKaEYhJJ8+SPDkFncc+h_HgNLg2pFBMam4waLYNGqLn3A-8n4A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ted Thibodeau Jr <tthibodeau@openlinksw.com>
Cc: W3C Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>
On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 at 04:46, Ted Thibodeau Jr <tthibodeau@openlinksw.com>
wrote:

> Hmmmmm
>
> On Dec 20, 2021, at 04:25 PM, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> So my thought process was as follows:
>
> 1. did:method: ## this is a sub protocol
> 2. did:method:name ## this is a name space within the sub protocol
>
>
> Let's compare with:
>
> 1. http:  ## this is a protocol
> 2. http://mycorporation ## this is a name space with in the protocol
>
>
> I would say, rather, starting with the well-known --
>
> 1. http: ## this is a URI scheme, which often but does not always
>          ## map to a protocol, and which one's browser and/or OS
>          ## usually maps to a handler/helper app (sometimes with
>          ## help from the user)
>
> 2. http://example.com ## this is a namespace within the scheme
>
> 3. http://example.com/index.html ## this is the stuff within the
>                                  ## namespace within the scheme
>
> Yes, http: maps rather to the HTTP protocol, but they are not the
> same, and blurring such lines is how we get into very deep holes
> as standard development proceeds.
>
> Then, *after* covering the long-used if not as well-understood as
> we might wish, I would suggest moving to the new thing we're working
> to explain and understand as we go ... which I'm not going to try to
> explain at this hour in my time zone.
>
>
> So the idea is that (1) something that is a protocol or sub protocol, in
> my mind should be a technical spec, non-proprietary, open
>
> And that (2) could be also proprietary, a per company things, for profit
> etc.
>
> As we see with http and the web, that's how it works, http is neutral and
> any company can have a web site.  It's a system that works well
>
>
> The URI format is open, being RFC-specified.  URI schemes and
> formats are not necessarily open -- and there's no requirement
> that they be so! -- nor that the scheme even be registered --
> though not registering a corporate-confidential scheme and format
> *might* lead to collisions on the open web, so long as there's
> some cleverness by that tech team, little meaningful information
> should be leaked by such...
>
> The DID scheme, and the basic DID URI format, are open, being W3C-REC
> specified.  DID methods, and the format beyond the first colon, may be
> mostly if not entirely proprietary.
>
>
> 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
>
>
> DID methods *may* be virtually if not entirely proprietary and
> monetizeable -- but this will have some effect on how they get
> evaluated through the rubric, which may lead to low (or high,
> who can predict these things?) uptake in the general marketplace.
>
> Decentralized IDentifiers would seem to me more valuable if they
> were less proprietary and more open, in all the ways those words
> might be understood -- but I cannot make this judgement for all
> in the world, especially as there may be other valuable factors
> which some proprietary specifier and/or implementer delivers to
> their users, which those users prize more highly.
>

Couple of issues with this

1. W3C is supposed to be vendor neutral, any endorsement (ie w3c stamp or
branding) of proprietary protocols would represent a change, and perhaps
require careful optics

2. Proprietary, for profit, protocols by their very nature are so, by being
centralized, even when they have distributed databases.  That's will lead
to misleading claims

On top of that, there's massive regulatory overhang

>
>
> That's the open market for you!
>
> Be seeing you,
>
> Ted
>
>
>
> --
> A: Yes.                          http://www.idallen.com/topposting.html
> | Q: Are you sure?
> | | A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
> | | | Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?
>
> Ted Thibodeau, Jr.           //               voice +1-781-273-0900 x32
> Senior Support & Evangelism  //        mailto:tthibodeau@openlinksw.com
> <tthibodeau@openlinksw.com>
>                              //              http://twitter.com/TallTed
> OpenLink Software, Inc.      //              http://www.openlinksw.com/
>          20 Burlington Mall Road, Suite 322, Burlington MA 01803
>      Weblog    -- http://www.openlinksw.com/blogs/
>      Community -- https://community.openlinksw.com/
>      LinkedIn  -- http://www.linkedin.com/company/openlink-software/
>      Twitter   -- http://twitter.com/OpenLink
>      Facebook  -- http://www.facebook.com/OpenLinkSoftware
> Universal Data Access, Integration, and Management Technology Providers
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 21 December 2021 08:46:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:25:25 UTC