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

@Manu Sporny <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> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 31, 2026 at 12:11 AM Bob Wyman <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/
>
>