DID Method Catalogue (was Re: Web 7.0 DID OS)

On Sat, Mar 14, 2026 at 1:19 AM Eduardo C. <e.chongkan@gmail.com> wrote:
> There are more screenshots here; https://github.com/w3c/did-extensions/pull/677,
> You can check the tool here: https://chongkan.github.io/did-extensions/explorer.html, it was fed form the repo as it was, and the idea is that all new methods, use the new json so that tool can stay up to date and run during CI -- ( if it gets approved )

Hey Eduardo, I really like your initiative and concept behind the
tooling! Thank you for putting an example together so we can get an
idea of the changes/tooling you'd like to see in the ecosystem. I
agree that tools like these are going to be helpful to provide to the
larger ecosystem.

All that said, I think some of what you have done is dangerous and
crosses "no-go" lines that the DID WG established a while ago. You
might not be aware of this, but the DID WG (and the CCG) have been
trying to establish a useful set of information to expose to people
that are interested in DIDs. We haven't done some of the things you
did in your PR because they were identified as things that DID Method
authors would not like -- that is, there are places where your tool is
making judgement calls on DID Methods that the tool could not have
possibly reviewed and is publishing information that is grossly
inaccurate.

For example, your tool has given a rating of an "F" to did:webs,
did:btcr, did:btco, and 44+ other DID Methods, on features that I know
that many of them have. IOW, the tool is giving "F" grades to DID
Methods for not having features that they definitely have.

The tool has marked did:webvh as a Legacy DID Method and L0 maturity
(the lowest maturity)... even though it is highly mature and that
community is one of the most active DID Method communities right now.

The tool has marked did:key is failing to meet every DID Use Case
requirement (when it passes most of them).

The tool suggests a maturity path for DIDs which is inaccurate... and so on.

Are you interested in working with the DID Working Group to establish
the things that we think we can safely publish and go from there. Your
vision is a good one (as far as educating the masses and letting them
filter/pick), however, it feels like you might have vibe-coded this
thing together and the LLM made some really questionable choices.

So, +1 to the general direction, but there are details here that
matter and we might want to start with something that is more focused
and less controversial. What do you think, Eduardo?

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
https://www.digitalbazaar.com/

Received on Saturday, 14 March 2026 17:02:17 UTC