Re: How/why "methods" became part of the original Decentralized Identifier conversations?

RE: If DIDs ever get integrated directly into network routing, that's when we truly cut the cord.

Web 7.0 has already made a lot of progress in this area. We're approaching the goal in two phases:

  1.
A DID-native BSD Sockets interface for Web 7.0 LOBE developers to use now
  2.
A DID-exclusive Internetwork, DIDNET7, that transports, routes, buffers, relays, and delivers secure, trusted DIDComm7 messages globally ... analogous to the way the TCP/IP network routes network packets but at a DIDComm Message level.

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 7:12:29 AM
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Cc: public-credentials (public-credentials@w3.org) <public-credentials@w3.org>
Subject: Re: How/why "methods" became part of the original Decentralized Identifier conversations?

@Manu Sporny<mailto:msporny@digitalbazaar.com>

Appreciate the historical context—it confirms what we've seen in practice: did:key is indeed the cleanest baseline for true decentralization. On DNS: we've hit the same wall. Even with blockchain-based methods, DNS keeps creeping in through resolution, service endpoints, and human-readable layers. If DIDs ever get integrated directly into network routing, that's when we truly cut the cord.


On Tue, 31 Mar 2026 at 18:18, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com<mailto:msporny@digitalbazaar.com>> wrote:
On Tue, Mar 31, 2026 at 12:11 AM Bob Wyman <bob@wyman.us<mailto:bob@wyman.us>> wrote:
> The question I would put to those who were in the original conversations: was the decision to introduce DID methods as a framework, rather than adopting WebFinger for the online case and a self-certifying identifier for the offline case, driven by technical requirements that this simpler approach could not satisfy? Or did it reflect other considerations? If so, what were they?

We had considered WebFinger, and implemented stuff initially on top of
it, but it's hopelessly tied to DNS, and uses a strange JRD format
that is a half-measure to something like JSON-LD. Ultimately,
WebFinger is centralized; centralized on DNS, centralized semantics
extensibility via IETF... it just didn't align with the core
philosophy around DIDs, which was decentralization. The other problem
with WebFinger was that there was no option to "go decentralized"
after adopting the scheme.

If you support DIDs, you can have a system that supports both did:web
and did:key and did:webvh and did:cel... if you go with WebFinger, you
just have a less-capable did:web where you can never leave your
"identifier provider". That is, you are beholden to your ISP/TLD
provider and can have your identifier taken away from you.

There are a number of other little reasons, but that's the gist of it.

I'll also push back on your assertion that did:web is the most popular
DID Method. While it sounds believable, I don't buy it -- it's mostly
issuers that use did:web. My gut tells me that did:plc is the most
popular DID Method, followed by perhaps did:key. Depends on how you
are counting popularity, and if we're successful at establishing a
fully decentralized DID Method, it's going to be impossible to get an
accurate estimate on its numbers (and that's a good thing). We have no
idea how many did:keys are in use out there and I expect the same to
be true for  DID Methods like did:cel.

-- manu

--
Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/

Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
https://www.digitalbazaar.com/