Re: Which field values of the following are locator DIDs and which are identity DIDs: - DID Document - VC Document - DIDComm Message

  1.
Regardless, DID Core 1.x is headed for collapse anyway ... especially when you consider to applying  it to Every Little Thing #ELT on the planet ...the least of which are VC documents, DID documents, DIDComm messages, context schema, digital agents, etc. DID Core 1.x is very good well-intentioned milestone. Now, it's time to build a complete Decentralized Systems Architecture whose scope is the entire decentralized ecosystem...not just one SDO, or another SDO, or yet another SDO. We need the SDO of SDOs to initiate, nurture, and curate the Decentralized Systems Architecture #DSA. The Web 7.0 Foundation is currently in the best position to accomplish this.
  2.
Returning to your previous email, each #DSA document (correctly) uses diverse combinations of Identity DIDs and Locator DIDs. It's imperative. The major scenarios have been enumerated here: https://hyperonomy.com/2026/03/31/dsa-which-field-values-of-the-following-documents-are-locator-dids-and-which-are-identity-dids/. All types of DIDs need to remain in the same specification IMO because they are tightly integrated components of the #DSA fabric.

Michael Herman
Chief Digital Officer
Web 7.0 Foundation

Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>
________________________________
From: Amir Hameed <amsaalegal@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2026 3:31:32 AM
To: Michael Herman (Trusted Digital Web) <mwherman@parallelspace.net>
Cc: Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Which field values of the following are locator DIDs and which are identity DIDs: - DID Document - VC Document - DIDComm Message

Our work at UDNA CG is on the similar lines but we treat DID as the authority without requiring any chance in the DID core , UDNA is full URI Addressing scheme not just identifier format, the whole idea is we can swap authority like DNS with DID without breaking compliance to RFC 3986 , DID is sufficient for root of trust and authority to be considered at network primitive level and that’s why changing DID core would lead to collapse of the uri scheme, keeping the DID core as it is gives UDNA immediate compatibility with existing DID work.

Regards

On Tue, 31 Mar 2026 at 2:08 AM, Michael Herman (Trusted Digital Web) <mwherman@parallelspace.net<mailto:mwherman@parallelspace.net>> wrote:

This isn’t about embedding/introducing anything fundamentally new.  Both concepts are currently included incurrent  DID Core but not clearly explained from a bullet-proof architecture perspective.  Separating them into separate physical documents is only going to make the coordination/learning problem worse.



We’ll make the change in DID7 EITF draft and see where it goes: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-herman-did7-identifier/




Michael Herman

Chief Digital Architect

Web 7.0 Foundation





From: Amir Hameed <amsaalegal@gmail.com<mailto:amsaalegal@gmail.com>>
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2026 10:05 AM
To: Michael Herman (Trusted Digital Web) <mwherman@parallelspace.net<mailto:mwherman@parallelspace.net>>
Cc: Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org<mailto:public-credentials@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: Which field values of the following are locator DIDs and which are identity DIDs: - DID Document - VC Document - DIDComm Message



Michael,



How about if we keep DID Core minimal and focused on identity, while introducing a dedicated URI‑based mechanism for routing and addressing. Embedding locator semantics directly into DID syntax adds unnecessary complexity and would likely require broad changes across the ecosystem. A layered approach enables addressing systems to evolve independently without impacting core identity specifications. Furthermore, in standard URI processing, fragments are strictly client‑side and not part of the resource resolution process, which makes them unsuitable for defining network‑level locator semantics.



Regards

Amir Hameed





On Mon, 30 Mar 2026 at 9:08 PM, Michael Herman (Trusted Digital Web) <mwherman@parallelspace.net<mailto:mwherman@parallelspace.net>> wrote:

Locator DIDs are used to locate/retrieve things: VC documents, DID documents, ...



Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>

________________________________

From: Michael Herman (Trusted Digital Web) <mwherman@parallelspace.net<mailto:mwherman@parallelspace.net>>
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2026 9:33:29 AM
To: Amir Hameed <amsaalegal@gmail.com<mailto:amsaalegal@gmail.com>>

Cc: Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org<mailto:public-credentials@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: Which field values of the following are locator DIDs and which are identity DIDs: - DID Document - VC Document - DIDComm Message



[Image]







Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>

________________________________

From: Amir Hameed <amsaalegal@gmail.com<mailto:amsaalegal@gmail.com>>
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2026 9:11:08 AM
To: Michael Herman (Trusted Digital Web) <mwherman@parallelspace.net<mailto:mwherman@parallelspace.net>>
Cc: Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org<mailto:public-credentials@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: Which field values of the following are locator DIDs and which are identity DIDs: - DID Document - VC Document - DIDComm Message



What is a locator DID?



On Mon, 30 Mar 2026 at 8:37 PM, Michael Herman (Trusted Digital Web) <mwherman@parallelspace.net<mailto:mwherman@parallelspace.net>> wrote:

Checkout: https://claude.ai/share/9a791ae5-2d6c-4ca5-8dfc-c5b85dc51fe7




One convention Web 7.0 is looking at adopting is:

  1.  A DID without a fragment is an Identity DID

  1.  A DID with a fragment is a Locator DID

  1.  A DID with an empty-string fragment forces a DID to be a Locator DID

This makes DID typing concrete/structural/robust. Check the above link for where Identity vs. Locator DIDs are used in DID Docs, VCs, and DIDComm Messages (in Web 7.0).



Michael Herman

Chief Digital Officer

Web 7.0 Foundation



Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>