Re: Decentralized identity leaders partner to accelerate DID method standardization

Thanks Manu. Very helpful clarifications.

Awesome work to you and all pulling it together.

Mike Prorock
founder - mesur.io

On Sun, Aug 4, 2024, 10:30 Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 12:15 PM Michael Prorock <mprorock@mesur.io>
> wrote:
> > 1) regarding roadmap item "Working Group charter(s) proposed" - any
> thoughts on where standardization will actually take place?
>
> It depends on where the discussions go once we start meeting
> regularly. The invitation to participate will be open, with meetings
> recorded and published. Where each specification goes will most likely
> be determined by where it most naturally fits (where the experts are
> for the DID Methods' base technology).
>
> > 2) I saw a pretty good list of participation from various SDOs - did you
> reach out to any contacts at IAB/IETF or other areas that potentially
> provide useful input, especially on security and interoperability aspects?
> if so, what feedback was received?
>
> We have reached out broadly to communities that are actively
> developing DID Methods. We haven't reached out to the IAB/IETF yet. We
> expect to do that when we have something more concrete to propose.
>
> > 3) confirming that the statement "to ensure compatibility beneficial
> across all DID methods" means that with a combination of standardization of
> methods + resolution that an implementation of one did method meeting the
> spec will be interoperable with any other or am i overthinking it?
>
> That statement was there to ensure that we can talk about
> standardizing design patterns that are useful across multiple DID
> Methods. You can think of DID Core, DID Resolution, and Controller
> Documents and as the foundation of those design patterns (key
> expression formats, service description formats, how you do
> resolution, etc.). There were people that were interested in
> standardizing pre-rotation mechanisms, DID Document change logs,
> multi-factor verification of a DID Document's integrity via binding to
> DNSSEC, etc. and they wanted to make sure we could talk about what
> those things might look like so that we might standardize them later.
> To be clear, talking about standardizing those things is in scope --
> not actually standardizing them (unless we get to consensus on those
> items, and even then, that feels more like a DID WG v2.0 thing AFTER
> we have at least one DID Method that formalizes the feature).
>
> -- manu
>
> --
> Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/
> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> https://www.digitalbazaar.com/
>
>