Response to ‘Demand Evaluation: Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs) v1.0’

The next answers had been efficiently submitted to 'Demand Evaluation:
Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs) v1.0 is a W3C Proposed Suggestion'
(Advisory Committee) for Mozilla Foundation by Tantek Çelik.

Relating to the "Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs) v1.0" specification, the
reviewer  suggests the doc no longer be published as a Suggestion
[Formal Objection] (your particulars under).


Additional comments regarding the specification:
   Summary:
No helpful interoperability.
Encourages divergence in predicament of convergence.
Centralized programs allowed, in contradiction to WG & spec dreams & title.
Proof-of-work programs (e.g. blockchains) are spoiled for sustainability
(s12y).

No helpful interoperability. As Microsoft & Google expressed, the DID
“Core” spec has no longer demonstrated any level of helpful
interoperability, as a change delegating that to a registry of 50+
“programs”, none of which themselves maintain interoperable implementations.
We agree with the analogy to URLs & schemes, as Google neatly-known: “precedent
save by the fashion of URLs, wherein RFC 1738 standardized 10 schemes
on the the same time as it standardized URLs in standard”. The Net has the same
skills with the img imprint & image formats, and the video imprint & video
formats. In every of these conditions, there had been a pair of interoperable formats
outdated to the tags themselves were standardized. To boot to, we agree with
the comments made by Microsoft to “suggest that implementers employ the
extra helpful JSON illustration, to give a boost to interoperability and steer determined of
complications and incompatibilities developing from JSON-LD processing.”

Encourages divergence in predicament of convergence. The DID architectural
way appears to attend divergence in predicament of convergence &
interoperability. The presence of 50+ entries within the registry, with none
true interoperability, appears to indicate that there are bigger incentives
to introduce a brand new methodology, than to are attempting and interoperate with any one amongst
a collection of rising present programs. Repeat right here's in distinction with prior
examples given (URL schemes, image & video formats). Thus, whether meant
or no longer, the DID specification (and most certainly its inherent architecture) is
designed in such a strategy that encourages divergence of implementations,
in predicament of convergence & interoperability. 

The shortage of restrictions on the registry are permitting programs diametrically
in opposition to the guidelines of the neighborhood & spec, and programs which would possibly perchance presumably be
actively globally spoiled to sustainability. Namely:

Centralized programs allowed, in contradiction to WG & spec dreams & title.
As Google neatly-known, some programs within the registry such as did:ccp employ a single
server, and thus any interop with such a methodology would bias in direction of
centralization, and certain be actually centralized in predicament of
decentralized. Centralization might perchance presumably be at an architectural level, or – at
a minimum – a service level, even supposing a pair of “implementations”
claimed to beef up it.

Proof-of-work programs (e.g. blockchains) are spoiled for sustainability
(s12y). Also as neatly-known by Google, the registry comprises programs which depend
upon proof-of-work which is wasteful. “A success” proof-of-work
programs wreck a staggering amount of electricity world-wide (e.g. Bitcoin
consumes extra vitality than most international locations
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2021/05/05/bitcoin-devours-more-electricity-than-many-countries-infographic/>)
demonstrating that the extra such programs are adopted, the extra their vitality
necessities develop, with none discernible upper dash, which is grossly
irresponsible given the worldwide environmental crisis (most up-to-date IPCC document
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58130705>).

Lawrence Berkeley Nationwide Laboratory urged “the registry have to composed
embody a requirement to give machine- and processor-just
overview of the vitality necessities of any programs being registered.”
We don’t maintain this goes some distance ample.

We (W3C) can no longer clutch a wait-and-peruse or neutral space on
applied sciences with egregious vitality employ. We must as a change firmly oppose such
proof-of-work applied sciences in conjunction with to essentially the most efficient of our skill blocking
them from being integrated or enabled (even optionally) by any
specs we construct. If something we have to composed pursue the reverse:
construct specs that supersede present specs, but with
mighty less energy consumption. We imagine right here's in step with the TAG
Ethical Net Sustainability opinion
(<https://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/ethical-web-principles/#sustainable>).

For these causes we imagine the DID specification might perchance presumably no longer be fixable (MUST
NOT turn right into a Suggestion). We counsel returning the specification to
Working Draft voice.



The reviewer's group:
   - doesn't ask to produce or employ merchandise or grunt material addressed by
this specification

Answers to this questionnaire might perchance presumably moreover be save and modified at
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/did-core-pr/ till 2021-08-31.

 Regards,

 The Automated WBS Mailer

Bought on Wednesday, 1 September 2021 02: 30: 03 UTC