- From: Filip Kolarik <filip26@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2024 18:45:00 +0100
- To: Aaron Goldman <goldmanaaron@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-did-wg@w3.org
On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 6:34 PM Aaron Goldman <goldmanaaron@gmail.com> wrote: > > I wonder if it would be better to have standard guidance for did:key extractors. There are many kinds of certs (Certificate Chains, GPG keys, Libp2p adresses, wallet address, nostr npub1 public keys). There are many many specs that bottom out as a public key in a key format supported by did:key +1. The original idea behind this post was to convert GPG public keys into DID keys. However, it has since evolved, as keyservers offer more data than just a public key, which could also be incorporated into the result. I think, describing how to convert a key into a DID key is an even broader and more complex approach, given the variety of key formats. > > X25519 > Secp256k1 > BLS 12381 > P-256 > P-384 > P-521 > RSA > > If we have guidance on how tools that use these specs to output a did:key and the did doc from that key. > maybe even using signed-ietf-json-patch to add any fields that are unique to that use case > https://github.com/decentralized-identity/did-spec-extensions/blob/main/parameters/signed-ietf-json-patch.md > did:key:123?signedIetfJsonPatch=head.body.sig > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 8:06 AM Markus Sabadello <markus@danubetech.com> wrote: >> >> Not sure about potential adoption. >> >> From a technical perspective it would certainly be interesting to >> define such a PGP-based DID method, to illustrate how DIDs can really >> serve as an abstraction layer for pretty much any key-based identifier >> system. >> >> Markus >> >> On 12/13/24 11:53 PM, Filip Kolarik wrote: >> > Thank you for the feedback. GPG keys are widely used, for example, by >> > GitHub users to obtain verified badges (alongside SSH keys), for >> > signing artifacts published on Maven Central, and Ubuntu has a >> > built-in key manager connected to key servers. These are just a few >> > examples, and I’m sure there are many more. >> > >> > Focusing on a smaller group (perhaps in the lower hundreds of >> > thousands?) at this stage of adoption could be far more beneficial for >> > the community than attempting to find a use case targeting millions of >> > non-technical users who may not fully grasp the purpose or value. By >> > expanding the current community of developers, we could help create >> > broader awareness and adoption over time. >> > >> > Best >> > Filip >> > >> > On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 2:49 PM Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Dec 12, 2024 at 9:00 PM Filip Kolarik <filip26@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I’d appreciate any thoughts or feedback on this idea, as well as >> >>> insight into whether there is interest or alignment with the goals of >> >>> this group. >> >> There was a previous attempt at a did:pgp, but I don't think it really >> >> went anywhere. I think the general thinking has been: "Yes, but how >> >> many people have an active PGP key... and would they be interested in >> >> converting that to a DID?" -- and the answer seems to be: "Not many" >> >> and "Probably not". >> >> >> >> I think a more likely bootstrap would be SSH keys, because developers >> >> need to use them, but again, the developer population is really small >> >> compared to the user population. If we look at the largest deployment >> >> of DIDs to date, BlueSky, I expect that next to none of those 25M+ >> >> people know they're even using a DID (which is where we need to be). >> >> >> >> Just some thoughts... not saying not to do a did:pgp, just noting >> >> we've had some discussions in the past and it didn't seem to go >> >> anywhere the first time around. >> >> >> >> -- manu >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/ >> >> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. >> >> https://www.digitalbazaar.com/ >>
Received on Friday, 13 December 2024 17:45:16 UTC