Mozilla and Google Objections Overruled on “Decentralized Identifiers” by W3C
1–10 of 199 posts
Re: Mozilla and Google Objections Overruled on “Decentralized Identifiers” by W3C
#2 The DID Core spec has not demonstrated any degree of practical interoperability, instead delegating that to a registry of 50+ methods.
The DID architectural approach appears to encourage divergence rather than convergence & interoperability. The presence of 50+ entries in the registry, without any actual interoperability, seems to imply that there are greater incentives to introduce a new method, than to attempt to interoperate with any one of a number of growing existing methods.
The lack of restrictions on the registry are allowing methods diametrically opposed to the principles of the group & spec, and methods which are actively globally harmful to sustainability.
[W]e believe the DID specification may not be fixable (MUST NOT become a Recommendation)."
"The Director concludes that the balance lies in favor of the DID developer community, encouraging it to continue its work and search for consensus on standard DID methods. The objections are overruled."Re: Mozilla and Google Objections Overruled on “Decentralized Identifiers” by W3C
#3"Mozilla: The DID Core spec has not demonstrated any degree of practical interoperability, instead delegating that to a registry of 50+ methods. The DID architectural approach appears to encourage divergence rather than convergence & interoperability. The presence of 50+ entries in the registry, without any actual interoperability, seems to imply that there are greater incentives to introduce a new method, than to at…
Re: Mozilla and Google Objections Overruled on “Decentralized Identifiers” by W3C
#4"Mozilla: The DID Core spec has not demonstrated any degree of practical interoperability, instead delegating that to a registry of 50+ methods. The DID architectural approach appears to encourage divergence rather than convergence & interoperability. The presence of 50+ entries in the registry, without any actual interoperability, seems to imply that there are greater incentives to introduce a new method, than to at…
Where have I heard this before? https://www.wired.com/2012/07/developer-quits-oauth-2-0-spec...
Re: Mozilla and Google Objections Overruled on “Decentralized Identifiers” by W3C
#5Re: Mozilla and Google Objections Overruled on “Decentralized Identifiers” by W3C
#6DID in my opinion is unlikely to succeed. Real builders don't use it, because it is cumbersome and requires agreeing with (a step up from collaborating with) other opinionated developers who have different specific use cases in mind.
Re: Mozilla and Google Objections Overruled on “Decentralized Identifiers” by W3C
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where have I heard this before? https://www.wired.com/2012/07/developer-quits-oauth-2-0-spec...
For those of us who aren't webdevs, what was the final fate of OAuth 2.0?
Re: Mozilla and Google Objections Overruled on “Decentralized Identifiers” by W3C
#8I've been following DID for a while and I really don't think its the right approach. The voices of concern from Mozilla and Google are spot on: the DID specs expect everyone to coordinate on finding the right structure for different types of data but the real world is messy and no "correct" structure exists. DID in my opinion is unlikely to succeed. Real builders don't use it, because it is cumbersome and requires ag…
Re: Mozilla and Google Objections Overruled on “Decentralized Identifiers” by W3C
#9"Mozilla: The DID Core spec has not demonstrated any degree of practical interoperability, instead delegating that to a registry of 50+ methods. The DID architectural approach appears to encourage divergence rather than convergence & interoperability. The presence of 50+ entries in the registry, without any actual interoperability, seems to imply that there are greater incentives to introduce a new method, than to at…
Re: Mozilla and Google Objections Overruled on “Decentralized Identifiers” by W3C
#10I've been following DID for a while and I really don't think its the right approach. The voices of concern from Mozilla and Google are spot on: the DID specs expect everyone to coordinate on finding the right structure for different types of data but the real world is messy and no "correct" structure exists. DID in my opinion is unlikely to succeed. Real builders don't use it, because it is cumbersome and requires ag…
Then why would we expect Mozilla or Google or anyone else on that committee to ever determine one? Or to object to a free-for-all naming scheme if the problem is inherently ad-hoc?
Whether or not this standard succeeds, one can see the very real threat of standard capture here. Which has happened before, on numerous occasions, when a canonical implementation arrives that just so happens to prioritize their interests.