Re: Elision in DID document

Hey Stephen,

Yep, that is a good question. I don't have any concrete use case - hoping
Christopher can chime in here as the biggest advocate for the importance of
elision.

I just wanted to show how you might technically achieve elision in a way
that aligns with the DID specification.

Thanks,
Will

On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 4:25 PM Stephen Curran <swcurran@cloudcompass.ca>
wrote:

> Hi Will,
>
> Thanks for raising this. I've heard about the idea of selective disclosure
> of DID Docs before, but I've not heard of use cases for it. My model for
> DIDs is that the identifier is bound to a DIDDoc of information (public
> keys, services) that you want every resolver to see.  What are the use
> cases for some of the content of a DID being selectively disclosed?
>
> Note that I'm a big fan of peer DIDs, where the DID (both identifier and
> the DIDDoc) are shared only with the peer(s) that you want to be able to
> resolve it, but I think that is pretty different from selective disclosure
> for a given DIDDoc.
>
> Thanks
>
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 6:32 AM Will Abramson <will@legreq.com> wrote:
>
>> Hey,
>>
>> On the DIDWG call yesterday there was a discussion around selective
>> disclosure and elision for DID document.
>>
>> It got me thinking about what a minimal effort approach to supporting
>> elision in DID documents might look like.
>>
>> I put my thoughts together here:
>> https://hackmd.io/@wip-abramson/rk-x9Kln1l
>>
>> TLDR: I think we could just define a new type or types in a DID extension
>> that would enable a form of elision.
>>
>> Interested what folks think, is this worth pursuing or just plain wrong :)
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Will
>>
>
>
> --
>
> Stephen Curran
> Principal, Cloud Compass Computing, Inc.
>