Re: Improving the DID Specification Registry (was: Re: Potential list of securities in the US [was: Unlawful Unregistered Securities, DID and VC])

A working implementation seems like an entirely reasonable threshold for listing in the register 

And then if you allow other implementers to claim independent implementations of the listed did methods AND you just innocently sort the list by implementation count then you’d have a self organising register were the top 10 or are self selecting evidence of value and viability 

Steven Capell
Mob: 0410 437854

> On 19 Jun 2023, at 3:53 pm, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Jun 18, 2023 at 5:40 PM Chaals Nevile
> <charles.nevile@consensys.net> wrote:
>> The exception is that there were some early and IMHO very valuable suggestions to apply slightly stronger criteria for what is acceptable as a registry entry.
> 
> Yes, so let's focus on this to see if we could get somewhere. I think
> AlexT had a workable suggestion in this thread:
> 
>> I'd suggest only having methods in the registry that have a working DID Resolver and DID Registrar, regardless of whether they're blockchain based or not.
> 
> Before the previous charter of the DID WG ended, the group was already
> discussing how we could raise the bar on the registry because the
> number of entries in the registry was having a negative perception
> problem. We wanted the bar to entry to be low (but significant
> enough), but we probably set it too low in hindsight (after the
> movement gained enough momentum).
> 
> One of the questions to DID Specification Authors we were considering
> for inclusion into the registry is: Have you actually implemented the
> specification you wrote, and is a sample request conformant with the
> DID Core specification?
> 
> We knew that changing the bar and eliminating many of the registered
> DID Methods would create its own controversy ("You're changing the
> goal posts!", implementers would exclaim). So the plan was to wait to
> see how the ecosystem developed, give everyone enough time to
> implement their DID Methods, and then note that we were going to raise
> the bar as the ecosystem matures (after more than enough warning --
> possibly up to a year).
> 
> That change above is wrapped up in the rechartering process of the DID
> WG currently, which is currently trying to decide if standardizing DID
> Methods are in scope or out of scope, or if the next charter should
> just focus on DID Resolution (or both!?). You can read the current
> charter under consideration here:
> 
> https://w3c.github.io/did-wg-charter/
> 
> ... which I expect to revisit this very question of the minimum bar
> for entry into the registry.
> 
> -- manu
> 
> PS: Melvin, this would address some of your concerns by eliminating
> large swaths of the registrations, but for a much different reason
> (implementation vs. potential legal standing).
> 
> -- 
> Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/
> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> https://www.digitalbazaar.com/
>

Received on Monday, 19 June 2023 07:17:11 UTC