Re: did:webs vs did:tdw

Daniel, as one of the drivers behind did:tdw, I'd like to clarify a
misconception about did:tdw.

We have come up with an approach for the inclusion of witnesses in did:tdw.
We've not implemented it yet, but it is a relatively small addition to the
spec, with a correspondingly lightweight implementation. Watchers (and
KERI's "judges" and "juries" components) are external parties to the
management of the DID/Identifier, so while they might be part of an
"implementer's guide", we don't think they need be part of the did:tdw
spec. That could change, but that's the plan for now.

Hope that helps.

On Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 12:23 PM Daniel Hardman <daniel.hardman@gmail.com>
wrote:

> From what I’ve gathered so far, the main difference is that did:webs
>> relies on KERI while did:tdw does not. Is that the only notable difference?
>>
>
> The reason that did:tdw does not have a dependency on KERI is because it
> avoids the witness and watcher features that a full KERI implementation
> would need. This is best understood as a choice to forego certain
> redundancy, duplicity detection, and error recovery options in order to
> avoid some complexity and ease adoption. I don't want to argue the merits
> here, but I do want to make sure that the choice is not framed as the
> choice between two identical approaches that differ only in that one has a
> dependency and the other doesn't. I think evaluators would be well served
> to understand the theory of witnesses and watchers as they evaluate.
>
> This is coming from someone who worked on did:webs, but who also admires
> all of Stephen's amazing contributions to the community, so take that with
> whatever political baggage seems appropriate. :-)
>


-- 

Stephen Curran
Principal, Cloud Compass Computing, Inc. (C3I)
Chair - Sovrin Foundation (sovrin.org)

*Schedule a Meeting: **https://calendly.com/swcurran
<https://calendly.com/swcurran>*