On Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 7:17 PM Steve Capell <steve.capell@gmail.com> wrote: > Can’t help but sympathise with the concern around the cacophony of DID > methods > All I can say is the many examples of the success of architectures leveraging multiple methods based on history history. In my case, Microsoft would have blocked TLS if we (the TLS editors) didn't support their Kerberos cypher suite, (a "method"). Which of course, no one used, and I later heard from one of the engineers was known to be more market positional than any technical reality. But Microsoft would have bounced TLS and used their only embrace & extend (effectively SSL 2.1) fork if we didn't accept Kerberos. There were also many more ciphersuites that were never used except in POCs. I argued in TLS 1.3 that we should deprecate more of them by putting expiration dates on them, and I also requested that we learn from that lesson and do the same with DIDs, but there wasn't consensus for this. My opinion is most DID methods will evolve or disappear as the market matures. IMHO this is the whole reason why we elected to use methods in the DID architecture in the first place. It also allows for innovation while discouraging blocking. -- Christopher Allen
Received on Thursday, 2 September 2021 03:23:15 UTC