Re: [EXT] did:webs vs did:tdw

On 6/24/24 7:19 PM, John, Anil wrote:
>
>  1. Is there a core subset of functionality available to did:tdw, that
>     may make sense to be incorporated into the core DID spec so that
>     it becomes available to all DID methods?
>
Historically, we should credit Sam Smith for having advocated in the DID 
WG for building KERI-style "proof of control authority" directly into 
the DID Core spec itself.

The reason why this hasn't happened is that the WG felt that such things 
should remain method-specific and that methods like did:web should be 
"allowed" too.

I don't think it's realistic that features like self-certifying 
identifiers or signed DID document updates will become mandatory in the 
DID Core spec, but there are still a number of steps we can potentially 
take in this new DID WG, such as:

- Explain the advantages of those features found in DID methods such as 
did:webs and did:tdw, and the risks of other DID methods that don't have 
them.
- For DID methods that have those features, potentially standardize 
additional DID document properties and metadata properties that would 
not be mandatory for all DID methods, but could have common meaning for 
those DID methods that do support them.
- Better explain that certain measures can be taken related to security 
and trust that are DID method independent, e.g. how to link DIDs to 
domain names, or how to link DIDs to X.509 certificates, or how to use 
hashlinks in DID URLs, etc. And maybe we can indeed find ideas in 
did:webs and did:tdw that could be "extracted" and actually layered on 
top of any DID method. In that case, we should describe such reusable 
concepts in DID Core or the DID Implementation Guide.

Markus