Distributed ID - Revision history

Tom: /* References */

2024-10-26T01:57:57Z

‎References

2024-10-26T01:56:19Z

‎Problems

2022-01-19T23:42:57Z

‎Context

2021-01-25T17:43:19Z

‎Solutions

2021-01-25T17:42:14Z

‎Context

2021-01-25T17:08:48Z

‎Context

2021-01-25T17:08:14Z

‎Context

2021-01-25T17:07:12Z

‎Context

2021-01-22T18:22:59Z

‎Full Title or Meme

2021-01-22T18:19:15Z

‎Context

@@ Line 50: / Line 50: @@
 ==References==
 #[https://cloudblogs.microsoft.com/enterprisemobility/2018/02/12/decentralized-digital-identities-and-blockchain-the-future-as-we-see-it/ Decentralized Digital Identities and Blockchain] perspective from Microsoft
 #[https://w3c.github.io/did-core/ Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs) v1.0] Core Data Model and Syntaxes <blockquote>Decentralized identifiers (DIDs) are a new type of identifier to provide verifiable, decentralized digital identity. These new identifiers are designed to enable the controller of a DID to prove control over it and to be implemented independently of any centralized registry, identity provider, or certificate authority. DIDs are URLs that relate a DID subject to a DID document allowing trustable interactions with that subject. DID documents are simple documents describing how to use that specific DID. Each DID document can express cryptographic material, verification methods, or service endpoints, which provide a set of mechanisms enabling a DID controller to prove control of the DID. Service endpoints enable trusted interactions with the DID subject.</blockquote>

@@ Line 38: / Line 38: @@
 ==Problems==
 * The big problem is [[Trust]] where there are no standards or examples of any trust without a history of trusted behavior.
 * Proof of Persistent Identity must be provided. This can be little more than the inclusion of a public key in a block chain, but that cannot provide any [[Assurance]] of protection of the [[Credential]].
 * DID are designed to be tied to a did method (e.g. Sovrin) which means that a life-long ID requires life-long methods with no means to migrate, even when the method dies out or is proven defective.

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 | # || Goal|| Description in draft of 2020-01-22|| Status
 |-
-| 1 || Decentralization || Eliminate the requirement for centralized authorities or single point failure in identifier management, including the registration of globally unique identifiers, public verification keys, service endpoints, and other metadata. || Spec does not achieve this
+| 1 || [[Decentralization]] || Eliminate the requirement for centralized authorities or single point failure in identifier management, including the registration of globally unique identifiers, public verification keys, service endpoints, and other metadata. || Spec does not achieve this
 |-
 | 2 || Control || Give entities, both human and non-human, the power to directly control their digital identifiers without the need to rely on external authorities. || Some authority needs to validate user agent code. There appears to be not reason to allow untrusted connections on the web, that is HTTPS which depends on identifier of the web site.

@@ Line 45: / Line 45: @@
 ==Solutions==
-*In this wiki the IAP ([[Identifier or Attribute Provider]]) supplies the contents of a [[Data Category]] only when that category has [[User Consent]]. To get all of those categories that the [[Relying Party]] requires, the request needs to go to a [[User Agent]] that is able to release the data held across many providers, some of the [[Thousand Points of Light]] that apply to the real-world [[User]], but only those appropriate for the [[Relying Party]] request are enabled by the user.
+*In wiki for the IAP ([[Identifier or Attribute Provider]]) supplies the contents of a [[Data Category]] only when that category has [[User Consent]]. To get all of those categories that the [[Relying Party]] requires, the request needs to go to a [[User Agent]] that is able to release the data held across many providers, some of the [[Thousand Points of Light]] that apply to the real-world [[User]], but only those appropriate for the [[Relying Party]] request are enabled by the user.
 *The [[Hundred Points of Light]] serve as a metaphor for the [[Distributed ID]].

@@ Line 28: / Line 28: @@
 | 7|| Interoperability|| Use interoperable standards so DID infrastructure can make use of existing tools and software libraries designed for interoperability. || where existing only means libraries written specifically to support DID only
 |-
-| 8 || Portability || Be system and network-independent and enable entities to use their digital identifiers with any system that supports DIDs and DID methods. || Only at sites that support their chosen method
+| 8 || Portability || Be system and network-independent and enable entities to use their digital identifiers with any system that supports DIDs and DID methods. || Only at sites that support their chosen method and it looks like there will be several hundred methods which this is deployed.
 |-
 | 9 || Simplicity || Favor a reduced set of simple features to make the technology easier to understand, implement, and deploy. || Not even close

@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 | 2 || Control || Give entities, both human and non-human, the power to directly control their digital identifiers without the need to rely on external authorities. || Some authority needs to validate user agent code. There appears to be not reason to allow untrusted connections on the web, that is HTTPS which depends on identifier of the web site.
 |-
-| 3 || Privacy || Enable entities to control the privacy of their information, including minimal, selective, and progressive disclosure of attributes or other data. ||Originall [https://hackylawyer.com/f/forget-erasure-why-blockchain-is-really-incompatible-with-gdpr not even compliant with GDPR] See update in problems below.
+| 3 || Privacy || Enable entities to control the privacy of their information, including minimal, selective, and progressive disclosure of attributes or other data. ||Originally [https://hackylawyer.com/f/forget-erasure-why-blockchain-is-really-incompatible-with-gdpr not even compliant with GDPR] See update in problems below.
 |-
 | 4 || Security || Enable sufficient security for relying parties to depend on DID documents for their required level of assurance. || No provision for assurance

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ==Full Title or Meme==
-A means to distribute the sources of [[Identifier]]s and [[Attribute]]s while giving more choice to [[User]]s by providing a URL to the [[User]]'s public key certificate in the form of a did doc.
+A means to distribute the sources of [[Identifier]]s and [[Attribute]]s while giving more choice to [[User]]s.
 ==Context==

@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 | 5|| Proof-based || Enable DID subjects to provide cryptographic proof when interacting with other entities. || all they can do is sign assertions, no other proof in this spec
 |-
-| 6 || Discoverability || Make it possible for entities to discover DIDs for other entities to learn more about or interact with those entities. || Only if universal resolver is deployed
+| 6 || Discoverability || Make it possible for entities to discover DIDs for other entities to learn more about or interact with those entities. || Only if universal resolver is deployed. Even then the did method may not convey the information needed to know if the did can be supported, eg did:web and did:indy.
 |-
 | 7|| Interoperability|| Use interoperable standards so DID infrastructure can make use of existing tools and software libraries designed for interoperability. || where existing only means libraries written specifically to support DID only