Re: Goals and Requirements for DID Method Standardization?

Michael,

I don't see anything wrong with Manu's message, on the contrary, I think 
it's a very useful contribution.
The list was presented as examples, and we're all just getting started 
with this.
Some other requirements and considerations are listed in the Working 
Group Charter 
<https://github.com/decentralized-identity/org/blob/main/Org%20documents/WG%20documents/DIF_DID_Methods_WG_Charter_v1.pdf> 
and the Working Group Operating Addendum 
<https://github.com/decentralized-identity/org/blob/main/Org%20documents/WG%20documents/DIF_DID_Methods_Operating_Addendum_v1.pdf>.

Keep in mind that the DID Methods WG is a collaboration between multiple 
organizations, including W3C.
So I think it's totally appropriate to share updates and feedback here 
on the CCG list (by anyone, not just co-chairs).

Like others, I am also quite confused by reading about claims of 
code-of-conduct violations.

In any case, I look forward to the next meeting, which will be on 4th 
December 2024 (NOT this week, due to U.S. Thanksgiving), see here for 
meeting information:
https://github.com/decentralized-identity/did-methods/blob/main/AGENDA.md

Markus

On 11/25/24 5:29 PM, Michael Herman (Trusted Digital Web) wrote:
>
> Manu, I believe you're getting way ahead of the actual progress of the 
> DID Method working group. None of what you've said below has been 
> ratified by the WG membership.  Everything is still a work in progress.
>
> All that has been requested asked for (by Kim in the last meeting) is 
> for the members to propose steps for moving forward /here/ (nothing 
> more): https://github.com/decentralized-identity/did-methods/issues
>
> In addition, I believe Markus's role as the co-chair is to report on 
> progress. The rest of us (including you and I) are just members.
>
> I'm deeply disappointed in seeing this email - to the point where it 
> may be a code-of-conduct violation.
>
> @Markus Sabadello <mailto:markus@danubetech.com>: Please add this 
> issue as an agenda topic for this week's WG meeting.  I've diarized 
> this here: https://github.com/decentralized-identity/did-methods/issues/9
>
> Best regards,
>
> Michael Herman
>
> Web 7.0 Foundation / TDW
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
> Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 8:35 AM
> To: W3C Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>
> Subject: Goals and Requirements for DID Method Standardization?
>
> Hey folks,
>
> The joint work on DID Method Standardization has begun. We had our 
> first meeting[1][2] two weeks ago, with the next meeting to be held 
> the week after this one. In the coming months, we will be gathering 
> goals and requirements for DID Method standardization to determine 
> which DID Methods we should try to standardize. We'll be looking to 
> the broader decentralized identity communities to suggest what our 
> selection requirements should be for the standardization work.
>
> I'm going to try to provide a few examples (we'll probably do a ranked 
> choice poll to rate the importance of each goal/requirement). Please 
> add your own to this thread so we can include them in the community 
> poll (which we'll probably run early Q1 2025).
>
> Requirements for DID Method Standardization:
>
> * At least one ephemeral DID Method should be identified for 
> standardization. These are useful for short-lived, secure 
> communication. Examples include did:key and did:jwk.
>
> * At least one web-based DID Method should be identified for 
> standardization. These are useful for issuers of verifiable 
> credentials and other forms of attestations who know how to manage web 
> domains but are not willing to depend on blockchains or DHTs for their 
> root of trust (i.e., governments). Examples include did:web and did:tdw.
>
> * At least one "fully decentralized" DID Method should be identified 
> for standardization. These are useful because they achieve what the 
> other two classes of DID Method above don't achieve -- the vision for 
> why we created DIDs in the first place. Examples include did:dht.
>
> * "Global government-approved crypto" is important to ensure 
> governments can adopt the DID Method. Examples include ECDSA.
>
> * "Privacy-preserving crypto" is important, even if not government 
> approved, to ensure the privacy of individuals. Examples include BBS.
>
> * A digitally signed cryptographic log of changes to the DID Document 
> is a useful feature to standardize on its own (so that multiple DID 
> Methods could utilize the feature).
>
> * A multi-factor binding to DNS is an important feature to standardize 
> on its own (so that domain owners can provide an extra level of 
> security on their DID Documents).
>
> * A specification with multiple implementers is always preferable to 
> inventing something new unless the community is behind the concept 
> that the "something new" is necessary.
>
> I know I'm missing many more requirement ideas, so what are they? What 
> do you feel we should include as requirements as we go through the 
> selection process for which DID Methods (and their features) should be 
> standardized?
>
> -- manu
>
> [1] 
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2024Nov/0026.html 
> <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2024Nov/0026.html>
>
> [2] 
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2024Nov/0035.html 
> <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2024Nov/0035.html>
>
> --
>
> Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/ 
> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/>
>
> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
>
> https://www.digitalbazaar.com/ <https://www.digitalbazaar.com/>
>