W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > February 2022

Re: DID methods as W3C standards - a happy compromise?

From: Steve Capell <steve.capell@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2022 22:32:33 +1100
Message-Id: <4991334C-E53C-4A22-8266-6E5F56391323@gmail.com>
Cc: public-credentials@w3.org
To: Markus Sabadello <markus@danubetech.com>
I should have said some did methods “clearly have no relationship to a specific commercial platform”.  Of course “web” or “dns” is a technology but nobody could reasonably claim that you are preferencing some specific commercial interests ;)

Steven Capell
Mob: 0410 437854

> On 22 Feb 2022, at 10:28 pm, Markus Sabadello <markus@danubetech.com> wrote:
> Hello Steve,
> Standardizing did:key and did:web is something that could potentially be done in a future DID WG, feel free to post comments here:
> https://github.com/w3c/did-wg-charter/issues/15
> https://github.com/w3c/did-wg-charter/issues/16
> You say that some DID methods "clearly have no relationship to a specific technology". I would argue that ALL DID methods have a relationship to a specific technology, but that technology is not necessarily a blockchain. The landscape of DID methods isn't really binary "with blockchain" or "without blockchain". It's much more diverse than that, and there are many different forms and combinations of "underlying technologies".
> Providing a decision tree to help users decide sounds great, maybe that's a potential work item for the CCG? :)
> The DID Rubric can perhaps help with that:
> https://www.w3.org/TR/did-rubric/
> Markus
>> On 22.02.22 09:05, steve capell wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> I've been delving into dozens of DID methods because I need to make some recommendations for customer decisions shortly.  I am starting to see patters and forming my own opinions on which DID methods might make sense for what purpose and which are likely to be well governed stayers which are (in my opinion - sorry) largely irrelevant.  
>> In doing so, I started thinking about the objections to the DID specification which seem to revolve largely around some desire to constrain the plethora of methods.
>> It's clear to me that W3C can't really prefer this or that blockchain or DLT implementation over another when it comes to developing standards without implying some kind of commercial preference.  Therefore leaving it to the market to propose a heap of DID methods and letting natural market consolidation choose the winner(s) seems the only way forward.  
>> However there are some (very few) did methods that clearly have no relationship to a specific technology and so can logically be separated out from the soup of "please use my ledger, it's better" methods as candidates for full W3C standardisation as part of the DID specification.
>> did:key
>> did:web
>> did:dns
>> did:ipid
>> did:peer
>> did:schema
>> and maybe did:keri, did:onion, ..?
>> It would even be possible to have a decision tree to help users decide which of these ledger agnostic methods is good for what purpose.  eg if you are a government agency or a large corporate with well known and stable domains then maybe did:web is good for the credentials you issue.  If the subject of the credential is a short lived thing like a trade consignment, maybe did:key or did:ipid is the ideal choice.  If you are a small business or citizen that wants to protect your privacy but also be able to prove your identity or entitlement as the subject of (say) a government issued credential, then perhaps did:kerri would work well.
>> Anyhow - the questions is - can't we pick just a small number of un-controversial methods to standardise?  even if it's just did:key and did:web to start with.
>> just a thought...
>> -- 
>> Steve Capell

Received on Tuesday, 22 February 2022 11:32:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:25:28 UTC