Re: Announcement: Authority-Scoped Decentralized Identifiers (DID7) specification

I believe this all fits into the RFC 8141 URN specification.

As for W3C DIDs, how they fit:

'urn' is implied,
'namespace' is the did:<method>,
'local authority' is not used (but could be),
'domain authority' is the unique identifier value within the namespace, and
the
'f-component' is anything that can be additionally specified.

see slide below

Tim


[image: image.png]

On Tue, Mar 17, 2026 at 10:36 AM Michael Herman (Trusted Digital Web) <
mwherman@parallelspace.net> wrote:

> This is the first (really the second) specification to be released by the
> Web 7.0 Foundation:
>
> *SDO: Authority-Scoped Decentralized Identifiers (DID7)*
>
>
> https://hyperonomy.com/2026/03/17/sdo-authority-scoped-decentralized-identifiers-did7/
>
>
>
> This document defines the did7 URI scheme, an authority-scoped DID format.
> DID7 adds:
>
>    - An optional authority component
>    - Two-stage resolution (authority → method)
>    - Forward-compatible namespace expansion
>
> The specification is fully compatible with the W3C DID Core data model
> [DID-CORE].
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Michael Herman
>
> Chief Digital Officer
>
> Web 7.0 Foundation
>
>
>
> *From:* Michael Herman (Trusted Digital Web) <mwherman@parallelspace.net>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 17, 2026 12:35 AM
> *To:* Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Drummond Reed <drummond.reed@gmail.com>; Manu Sporny (
> msporny@digitalbazaar.com) <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>; Markus Sabadello <
> markus@danubetech.com>; Daniel Hardman - Personal () <
> daniel.hardman@gmail.com>; public-credentials (public-credentials@w3.org)
> <public-credentials@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Re: How/why "methods" became part of the original
> Decentralized Identifier conversations?
>
>
>
> Melvin, https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6920.html is very interesting.
> It suggests a backward compatible syntax for adding an Authority component
> to a DID 1.1 legacy identifier...
>
>
>
> did://authority/method:unique-item-id
>
>
>
> Legacy DIDs (did:method:unique-item-id) can assume a mapping to a default
> authority value of: www.w3.org
>
>
>
> did://www.w3.org/method:unique-item-id
>
> e.g. did://www.w3.org/key:hash
>
>
>
> Support for Authority is needed, for example, to create proper DID
> identities for things like context schema documents.
>
>
>
> This wasn't the purpose for my original question, but I like the outcome.
> Thank you. 🙂
>
>
>
> Michael Herman
>
> Chief Digital Officer
>
> Web 7.0
>
>
>
>
>
> Get Outlook for Android <https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, March 16, 2026 11:49:06 PM
> *To:* Michael Herman (Trusted Digital Web) <mwherman@parallelspace.net>
> *Cc:* Drummond Reed <drummond.reed@gmail.com>; Manu Sporny (
> msporny@digitalbazaar.com) <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>; Markus Sabadello <
> markus@danubetech.com>; Daniel Hardman - Personal () <
> daniel.hardman@gmail.com>; public-credentials (public-credentials@w3.org)
> <public-credentials@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Re: How/why "methods" became part of the original
> Decentralized Identifier conversations?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> út 17. 3. 2026 v 3:03 odesílatel Michael Herman (Trusted Digital Web) <
> mwherman@parallelspace.net> napsal:
>
> To: The Original DID People,
>
> Who remembers how/why "methods" became part of the original Decentralized
> Identifier conversations?  What was the original catalyst/reason d’etre for
> having “methods”?
>
> Why aren’t we all just using something simple and universal like:
> urn:<hash>?  …that is, one universal syntax plus multiple diverse
> back-end technology implementations?
>
>
>
> Originally there was work using schemes like ni:// (RFC 6920) and related
> hash-based identifiers, which provide standardized content-addressable
> identifiers. I also built a proof of concept using ni:// for the web, which
> fed into later CG discussions.
>
> DIDs emerged when the problem expanded beyond identifying content to
> identifying subjects with control: keys, rotation, and service endpoints.
> That shift introduced the need for method-specific resolution. At the same
> time, “decentralized” became a popular framing, including from a marketing
> perspective, which influenced the terminology and direction of the work.
>
> From there, multiple use cases and stakeholders led to a proliferation of
> methods.
>
> In the case of did:nostr, the aim is closer to the original hash-based
> simplicity, using the public key as a stable identifier, with
> did:nostr:<hash> as a compromise to interoperate with the DID ecosystem.
>
>
>
>
>
> Michael
>
> Web 7.0
>
>