Re: Utah State-Endorsed Digital Identity (SEDI) legislation

We have much the same challenge of how to link authoritative registers to self-sovereign IDs in UNTP.  Also how to verify those links.  So it’s interesting to look at the SEDI vs EUDI approach and then figure out how our UN approach aligns.

This (draft) page needs an update https://untp.unece.org/docs/specification/DigitalIdentityAnchor. But basically the key ideas are
Business mints a DID and then proves control to an authority who issues an identity credential saying “we know that DID as this registered ID”.  The register ID would be a business registration or a trademark or even a land asset. That feels a bit more “SEDI - like” because it’s not the authority controlling identity, only asserting a relationship between a business controlled ID and the authoritative registered ID.  
We don't depend on wallets at all in any of UNTP. Partly because it’s such a fragmented space and mostly because there are so many cases where the verifier is completely decoupled from the holder/subject and so there’s no concept of a presentation in the usual sense. For example, a chamber of commerce (issuer) issues Certificate of Origin (VC) to an exporter (initial holder) about a consignment (subject).  The exporter bundles the VC with other export docs and provides to forwarder, who passes it to importer, who hands it on to their customs broker, who gives it to the importing customs authority - which is the party that actually needs to verify the certificate so they can grant preferential tariff rates.  There couldn’t possibly be any way to manage or enforce any kind of “authorised verifier” in this case.  So the trust has to be built into the linked verifiable data and nothing to do with who is verifying.  So I guess we are a bit more SEDI-like in this context too.

It’s not my intent here to say “SEDI is better than EUDI” - because both of those are primarily focused on privacy sensitive personal credentials (which UNTP is not) and both assume the basic idea that it’s the subject/holder of a credential that presents it to an (authorised or not) verifier.  I’m just saying that there are real use cases where the argument is kind of irrelevant because you couldn’t control who is allowed to verify even if you wanted to.

Kind regards,

Steve Capell
UN/CEFACT Vice-Chair
steve.capell@gmail.com
+61 410437854



> On 14 Feb 2026, at 5:47 am, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2026 at 11:20 AM Amir Hameed <amsaalegal@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Can anyone here help me with the context of this thread, i haven't heard of SEDI before
> 
> See the very first post in this thread (which contains a link to SEDI):
> 
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2026Feb/0044.html
> 
> -- manu
> 
> -- 
> Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/
> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> https://www.digitalbazaar.com/
>