Hi Drummond

thankyou for the clarification. We could also state that the converse is also true

a. An SSI system shall not require reliance on a blockchain or other DLT

but of course it may include them.

Note that the W3C VC Data Model already states that VCs do not depend on DIDs and DIDs do not depend on verifiable credentials, so we do not need to include that in your principles.

However, can you tell me how principle 11

An SSI ecosystem shall empower identity rights holders to protect the privacy of their digital identity data and to share the minimum digital identity data required for any particular interaction.

can be supported by long lived VCs that have a persistent DID for the subject ID, when this is a correlating handle that does the opposite of protecting the privacy of the data subject

Kind regards


On 22/03/2021 01:55, Drummond Reed wrote:
David, I believe you're misinterpreting the third principle. It doesn't say that centralized systems can't be involved or can't issue a VC. It says only that an SSI ecosystem cannot make a centralized system the only option for representing, controlling, or verifying identity data (which is the case with centralized or federated identity systems).

BTW, just to clarify, it also doesn't mean an SSI ecosystem can't include centralized or federated identity systems as a subset of the SSI ecosystem. Again, it just means that the centralized or federation systems can't be the only option.


On Sun, Mar 21, 2021 at 4:36 AM David Chadwick <D.W.Chadwick@kent.ac.uk> wrote:

Hi Steve

I think you will have a hard time convincing anyone of the principles of SSI when Sovrin's third principle states

3. An SSI ecosystem shall not require reliance on a centralized system to represent, control, or verify an entity’s digital identity data.

This is clearly impossible, since every VC Issuer that I know has a centralised system in which they store, manage and update the user's PII from which they issue their VCs.

Kind regards


On 20/03/2021 20:25, Steve Capell wrote:
Hi Michael

As a contractor to Australian government I deal with policy makers almost every day and so I understand both the difficulty and the necessity of conveying these concepts to non technical audiences.

As a sufficiently technical reader, I liked your article. It’s the first time I’ve seen that meta-model of the identity domain and, for me, it was very helpful.

However, sadly, I don’t think it will help the policy maker that is not used to reading meta models. I usually have more success with storyboards that contrast two architectures with real examples. Policy makers don’t need to “understand the architecture”.  They need to be able to conceptualise how it works through examples to that they can understand the policy impacts and opportunities.  

I also need to convey these ideas - both to AU and UN sometime over the next month or so. I’ll need to test my communication materials on non technical people to ensure the message has worked - and also on expert SSI community members to ensure that the message is right. For that latter concern, please let me know if anyone in this group is willing to be a sounding board 

Kind regards 

Steven Capell
Mob: 0410 437854

On 21 Mar 2021, at 4:47 am, Michael Herman (Trusted Digital Web) <mwherman@parallelspace.net> wrote:

RE: In prep calls for the panel and other mentions of our work, the “Self-Sovereign Identity” concept is treated as controversial. In a recent major webinar about mandated protocols by the US regulators themselves, they referred to “Distributed Identity”.


I’m trying to address the same issue wrt what is “Self-Sovereign Identity” / “SSI” at its very core. 


Check out: https://hyperonomy.com/2021/02/01/ssi-unconscious-contractions/


I’m looking for additional people who share a similar perspective.


Best regards,



From: Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com>
Sent: March 20, 2021 8:58 AM
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Cc: W3C Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>
Subject: The SSI protocols challenge [Was]: W3C DID Core 1.0 enters Candidate Recommendation stage


It is indeed a big deal and cause for celebration. 


From my perspective the next challenge is to get the protocols right from a human-centered and community perspective. 


For an example of that challenge, on March 30 I’m on a Digital Credentials panel at the ONC (US Federal healthcare regulator) Annual Meeting. In prep calls for the panel and other mentions of our work, the “Self Sovereign Identity” concept is treated as controversial. In a recent major webinar about mandated protocols by the US regulators themselves, they referred to “Distributed Identity” :-?


Let us celebrate and consider the Fun times ahead....




On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 10:16 AM Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:

Hi all,

Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs) v1.0 has reached the Candidate Recommendation
stage at W3C. The current specification can be found here:


This is a major milestone in the W3C global standards process. It marks the
start of a period of 1-4 months where the official W3C Working Group has
communicated that it is done with all features in the specification.

The W3C DID WG has also communicated that the specification is stable enough
to collect implementation experience from the global implementer community.
Once the WG collects enough implementation experience, it may then make final
adjustments before publishing the v1.0 global standard, which is expected at
the end of September 2021.

I have attached an image with an (unofficial) graphical depiction of the DID
standards history and expected future timeline.

Congratulations to everyone that contributed to get us to this point; this is
a big deal and cause for celebration. :)

-- manu

Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Veres One Decentralized Identifier Blockchain Launches