Decentralized identifiers (DIDs) are a new type of identifier that
enables verifiable, decentralized digital identity. A DID identifies any
subject (e.g., a person, organization, thing, data model, abstract entity, etc.)
that the controller of the DID decides that it identifies. 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 associate
a DID subject with a DID document allowing trustable interactions
associated with that subject. 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 associated with
the DID subject. A DID document might contain semantics about the
subject that it identifies. A DID document might contain the DID
subject itself (e.g. a data model).
This document specifies a common data model, a URL format, and a set of
operations for DIDs, DID documents, and DID methods.
Status of This Document
This section describes the status of this
document at the time of its publication. Other documents may supersede
this document. A list of current W3C publications and the latest revision
of this technical report can be found in the
W3C technical reports index at
https://www.w3.org/TR/.
This specification is under active development and implementers are advised
against implementing the specification unless they are directly involved with
the W3C DID Working Group. There are use cases [DID-USE-CASES] in active
development that establish requirements for this document.
At present, there exist
40
experimental implementations and a preliminary
test suite
that will eventually determine whether or not implementations are conformant.
Readers are advised that Appendix § A. Current Issues contains a
list of concerns and proposed changes that will most likely result in
alterations to this specification.
Portions of the work on this specification have been funded by the United States
Department of Homeland Security's Science and Technology Directorate under
contracts HSHQDC-16-R00012-H-SB2016-1-002 and HSHQDC-17-C-00019. The content of
this specification does not necessarily reflect the position or the policy of
the U.S. Government and no official endorsement should be inferred.
Work on this specification has also been supported by the Rebooting the Web of
Trust community facilitated by Christopher Allen, Shannon Appelcline, Kiara
Robles, Brian Weller, Betty Dhamers, Kaliya Young, Kim Hamilton Duffy, Manu
Sporny, Drummond Reed, Joe Andrieu, and Heather Vescent.
GitHub Issues are preferred for
discussion of this specification.
Alternatively, you can send comments to our mailing list.
Please send them to
public-did-wg@w3.org
(archives).
Publication as a Working Draft does not imply endorsement by the W3C
Membership. This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or
obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to cite this
document as other than work in progress.
This document was produced by a group
operating under the
W3C Patent Policy.
W3C maintains a
public list of any patent disclosures
made in connection with the deliverables of
the group; that page also includes
instructions for disclosing a patent. An individual who has actual
knowledge of a patent which the individual believes contains
Essential Claim(s)
must disclose the information in accordance with
section 6 of the W3C Patent Policy.
As individuals and organizations, many of us use globally unique identifiers in
a wide variety of contexts. They serve as communications addresses (telephone
numbers, email addresses, usernames on social media), ID numbers (for passports,
drivers licenses, tax IDs, health insurance), and product identifiers (serial
numbers, barcodes, RFIDs). Resources on the Internet are identified by globally
unique identifiers in the form of MAC
addresses; URIs (Uniform Resource Identifiers) are used for resources on the Web
and each web page you view in a browser has a globally unique URL (Uniform
Resource Locator).
The vast majority of these globally unique identifiers are not under our
control. They are issued by external authorities that decide who or what they
identify and when they can be revoked. They are useful only in certain contexts
and recognized only by certain bodies (not of our choosing). They may disappear
or cease to be valid with the failure of an organization. They may unnecessarily
reveal personal information. And in many cases they can be fraudulently
replicated and asserted by a malicious third-party ("identity theft").
The Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs) defined in this specification are a new
type of globally unique identifier designed to enable individuals and
organizations to generate our own identifiers using systems we trust, and to
prove control of those identifiers (authenticate) using cryptographic proofs
(for example, digital signatures, privacy-preserving biometric protocols, and so
on).
Because we control the generation and assertion of these identifiers, each of us
can have as many DIDs as we need to respect our desired separation of
identities, personas, and contexts (in the everyday sense of these words). We
can scope the use of these identifiers to the most appropriate contexts. We can
interact with other people, institutions or systems that require us to identify
ourselves (or things we control) while maintaining control over how much
personal or private data should be revealed, and without depending on a central
authority to guarantee the continued existence of the identifier.
This specification does not require any particular technology or cryptography to
underpin the generation, persistence, resolution or interpretation of DIDs.
Rather, it defines: a) the generic syntax for all DIDs, and b) the generic
requirements for performing the four basic CRUD operations (create, read,
update, deactivate) on the metadata associated with a DID (called the DID
document).
This enables implementers to design specific types of DIDs to work with the
computing infrastructure they trust (e.g., blockchain, distributed ledger,
decentralized file system, distributed database, peer-to-peer network). The
specification for a specific type of DID is called a DID method. Implementers of
applications or systems using DIDs can choose to support the DID methods most
appropriate for their particular use cases.
This specification is for:
Developers who want to enable users of their system to generate and assert their
own identifiers (producers of DIDs);
Developers who want to enable their systems to accept user-controlled
identifiers (consumers of DIDs);
Developers who wish to enable the use of DIDs with particular computing
infrastructure (DID method developers).
Note: Diversity of DID systems
DID methods can also be developed for identifiers registered in federated or
centralized identity management systems. Indeed, almost all types of identifier
systems can add support for DIDs. This creates an interoperability bridge
between the worlds of centralized, federated, and decentralized identifiers.
1.1
A Simple Example
This section is non-normative.
A DID is a simple text string consisting of three parts, the:
Example 1: A simple example of a decentralized identifier (DID)
did:example:123456789abcdefghi
The example DID above resolves to a DID document. A DID
document contains information associated with the DID, such as ways
to cryptographically authenticate the DID controller, as
well as services that can be used to interact with the DID subject.
{
"@context": "https://www.w3.org/ns/did/v1",
"id": "did:example:123456789abcdefghi",
"authentication": [{
// used to authenticate as did:...fghi
"id": "did:example:123456789abcdefghi#keys-1",
"type": "Ed25519VerificationKey2018",
"controller": "did:example:123456789abcdefghi",
"publicKeyBase58": "H3C2AVvLMv6gmMNam3uVAjZpfkcJCwDwnZn6z3wXmqPV"
}],
"service": [{
// used to retrieve Verifiable Credentials associated with the DID
"id":"did:example:123456789abcdefghi#vcs",
"type": "VerifiableCredentialService",
"serviceEndpoint": "https://example.com/vc/"
}]
}
1.2
Design Goals
This section is non-normative.
Decentralized Identifiers are a component of larger systems, such as
the Verifiable Credentials ecosystem [VC-DATA-MODEL], which drove the design
goals for this specification. This section summarizes the primary design goals
for this specification.
Goal
Description
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.
Control
Give entities, both human and non-human, the power to directly control their
digital identifiers without the need to rely on external authorities.
Privacy
Enable entities to control the privacy of their information, including minimal,
selective, and progressive disclosure of attributes or other data.
Security
Enable sufficient security for relying parties to depend on DID documents
for their required level of assurance.
Proof-based
Enable DID controllers to provide cryptographic proof when interacting
with other entities.
Discoverability
Make it possible for entities to discover DIDs for other entities, to
learn more about or interact with those entities.
Interoperability
Use interoperable standards so DID infrastructure can make use of
existing tools and software libraries designed for interoperability.
Portability
Be system- and network-independent and enable entities to use their digital
identifiers with any system that supports DIDs and DID methods.
Simplicity
Favor a reduced set of simple features to make the technology easier to
understand, implement, and deploy.
Extensibility
Where possible, enable extensibility provided it does not greatly hinder
interoperability, portability, or simplicity.
1.3
Architecture Overview
This section provides a basic understanding of the major elements of DID
architecture. Formal definitions of terms are provided in
§ 2.
Terminology
.
Figure 1
The basic components of DID architecture.
DIDs and DID URLs
A DID, or Decentralized Identifier, is a URI composed of three parts: the
scheme "did:", a method identifier, and a unique, method-specific identifier
generated by the DID method. DIDs are resolvable to DID documents.
A DID URL extends the syntax of a basic DID to incorporate other standard
URI components (path, query, fragment) in order to locate a particular
resource—for example, a public key inside a DID document, or a
resource available external to the DID document.
DID Subjects
The subject of a DID is, by definition, the entity identified by the
DID. The DID subject may also be the DID controller.
Anything can be the subject of a DID: person, group, organization, physical
thing, logical thing, etc.
DID Controllers
The controller of a DID is the entity (person, organization, or
autonomous software) that has the capability—as defined by a DID
method—to make changes to a DID document. This capability is
typically asserted by the control of a set of cryptographic keys used by
software acting on behalf of the controller, though it may also be asserted via
other mechanisms. Note that a DID may have more than one controller, and the
controller(s) may include the DID subject.
Verifiable Data Registries
In order to be resolvable to DID documents, DIDs are typically
recorded on an underlying system or network of some kind. Regardless of the
specific technology used, any such system that supports recording DIDs and
returning data necessary to produce DID documents is called a
verifiable data registry. Examples include distributed ledgers,
decentralized file systems, databases of any kind, peer-to-peer networks, and
other forms of trusted data storage.
DID documents
DID documents contain metadata associated with a DID. They
typically express verification methods (such as public keys) and services
relevant to interactions with the DID subject. A DID document is serialized
according to a particular syntax (see § 6. Core Representations). The
DID itself is the value of the id property. The generic properties
supported in a DID document are specified in § 5. Core Properties.
The properties present in a DID document may be updated according to the
applicable operations outlined in § 7. Methods.
Conceptually, the relationship between this specification and a DID
method specification is similar to the relationship between the IETF generic
URI specification ([RFC3986]) and a specific URI scheme
([IANA-URI-SCHEMES] (such as the http: and https: schemes specified in
[RFC7230]). It is also similar to the relationship between the IETF generic
URN specification ([RFC8141]) and a specific URN namespace definition, (such
as the UUID URN namespace defined in [RFC4122]). The difference is that
a DID method specification, as well as defining a specific DID scheme, also
specifies the methods creating, resolving, updating, and deactivating
DIDs and DID documents using a specific type of verifiable data
registry.
DID resolvers and DID resolution
A DID resolver is a software and/or hardware component that takes a
DID (and associated options) as input and produces a conforming DID
document (and associated metadata) as output. This process is called DID
resolution. The inputs and outputs of the DID resolution process are defined
in § 8.
Resolution
. The specific steps for resolving a specific type
of DID are defined by the relevant DID method specification. Additional
considerations for implementing a DID resolver are discussed in
[DID-RESOLUTION].
DID URL dereferencers and DID URL dereferencing
A DID URL dereferencer is a software and/or hardware component that takes
a DID URL (and associated options) as input and produces a resource (and
associated metadata) as output. This process is called DID URL dereferencing.
The inputs and outputs of the DID URL dereferencing process are defined in § 8.2
DID URL Dereferencing
. Additional considerations for implementing a
DID URL dereferencer are discussed in [DID-RESOLUTION].
1.4 Conformance
As well as sections marked as non-normative, all authoring guidelines, diagrams, examples, and notes in this specification are non-normative. Everything else in this specification is normative.
The key words MAY, MUST, MUST NOT, RECOMMENDED, REQUIRED, SHOULD, and SHOULD NOT in this document
are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14
[RFC2119] [RFC8174]
when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.
This document contains examples that contain JSON, CBOR, and JSON-LD content.
Some of these examples contain characters that are invalid, such as inline
comments (//) and the use of ellipsis (...) to denote
information that adds little value to the example. Implementers are cautioned to
remove this content if they desire to use the information as valid JSON, CBOR,
or JSON-LD.
Interoperability of implementations for DIDs and DID documents will be tested by
evaluating an implementation's ability to create and parse DIDs and
DID documents that conform to the specification. Interoperability for
producers and consumers of DIDs and DID documents is provided by
ensuring the DIDs and DID documents conform. Interoperability for
DID method specifications is provided by the details in each DID method
specification. It is understood that, in the same way that a web browser is not
required to implement all known URI schemes, conformant software that works with
DIDs is not required to implement all known DID methods (however, all
implementations of a given DID method must be interoperable for that method).
A conforming DID is any concrete expression of the rules specified in
Section § 3. Identifier and MUST comply with relevant normative
statements in that section.
A conforming DID Document is any concrete expression of the data
model described in this specification and MUST comply with the relevant
normative statements in Sections § 4. Data Model and § 5. Core Properties. A serialization format for the conforming document
MUST be deterministic, bi-directional, and lossless as described in Section § 6. Core Representations. The conforming DID documentMAY be
transmitted or stored in any such serialization format.
A conforming DID Method is any specification that complies with the
relevant normative statements in Section § 7. Methods.
A producer is any algorithm realized as software and/or hardware and
conforms to this specification if it generates conforming DIDs or
conforming DID Documents. A producer that is conformant with this
specification MUST NOT produce non-conforming DIDs or DID
Documents.
A consumer is any algorithm realized as software and/or hardware and
conforms to this specification if it consumes conforming DIDs or
conforming DID Documents. A consumer that is conformant with this
specification MUST produce errors when consuming non-conforming DIDs or
DID Documents.
2.
Terminology
This section is non-normative.
This document attempts to communicate the concepts outlined in the
decentralized identifier space by using specialized terms to discuss
specific concepts. This terminology is included below and linked to throughout
the document to aid the reader:
decentralized identifier (DID)
A globally unique identifier that does not require a centralized registration
authority because it is registered with distributed ledger technology
(DLT) or other form of decentralized network. The generic format of a DID is
defined in this specification. A specific DID scheme is defined in a
DID method specification.
A set of data describing the DID subject, including mechanisms, such as
public keys and pseudonymous biometrics, that the DID subject can use to
authenticate itself and prove their association with the DID. A DID
document might also contain other
attributes or
claims
describing the subject. These documents are graph-based data structures that
are typically expressed using [JSON-LD], but can be expressed using other
compatible graph-based data formats.
DID fragment
The portion of a DID URL that follows the first hash sign character
(#). DID fragment syntax is identical to the URI fragment syntax.
DID method
A definition of how a specific DID scheme can be implemented on a
specific distributed ledger or network, including the precise methods by
which DIDs are resolved and deactivated and DID documents are
written and updated.
DID path
The portion of a DID URL that begins with and includes the first forward
slash character (/). DID path syntax is identical to the URI path
syntax.
DID query
The portion of a DID URL that follows the first question mark character
(?). DID query syntax is identical to the URI query syntax.
Verifiable
data registry
A role a system performs to mediate the creation, verification, updating, and
deactivation of decentralized identifiers. For more information, see
[VC-DATA-MODEL].
DID resolution
The function that takes as its input a DID and a set of input
metadata and returns a DID document in a conforming representation
plus additional metadata. This function relies on the "Read" operation of the
applicable DID method. The inputs and outputs of this function are defined
in § 8.1
DID Resolution
.
The formal syntax of a decentralized identifier. The generic DID scheme
is defined in this specification. Separate DID method specifications
define a specific DID scheme that works with that specific DID method.
DID subject
The entity the DID document is about. That is, the entity identified by
the DID and described by the DID document.
DID URL
A DID plus an optional DID path, optional ? character
followed by a DID query, and optional # character followed
by a DID fragment.
DID URL dereferencing
The function that takes as its input a DID URL, a DID document,
and a set of dereferencing options and returns a resource, which might be
a DID document, plus additional metadata. This function can use the DID resolution
function to fetch a DID document indicated by the DID within the DID URL.
The dereferencing function then can perform additional processing on the DID document to return
the dereferenced resource indicated by the DID URL. The inputs and outputs of this
process are defined in § 8.2
DID URL Dereferencing
.
distributed ledger (DLT)
A distributed database
in which the various nodes use a
consensus protocol
to maintain a shared ledger in which each transaction is cryptographically
signed and chained to the previous transaction.
A JSON object contained inside a DID document that contains all the
metadata necessary to use a public key or verification key.
resource
The term resource is used in the same way as defined for HTTP in [RFC7231];
that is, a resource is the target of a request and is identified by a URI.
This specification does not limit the nature of a resource, but defines an
interface that might be used to interact with resources when identified by
a DID.
service endpoint
A network address at which a service operates on behalf of a DID subject.
Examples of specific services include discovery services, social networks, file
storage services, and verifiable claim repository services. Service endpoints
might also be provided by a generalized data interchange protocol, such as
extensible data interchange.
A timestamp is verifiable if a third-party can confirm that a piece of data
existed at a specific moment in time. Verifying data integrity can be done in
such a way that the party verifying the data is highly confident that an
authority or malicious party could not have reasonably modified the data as it
existed at the attested moment in time. If the data integrity could reasonably
be modified or corrupted by a central authority or other party, the timestamp is
not verifiable.
verification method
A set of parameters that can be used to independently verify a proof according to
a particular method. For example, a public key can be used as a verification
method with respect to a digital signature; in such usage, it verifies that the
signer possessed the associated private key.
"Verification" and "proof" in this definition are intended to apply broadly. A public
key might be used during Diffie-Hellman key exchange to negotiate a shared symmetric
key for encryption. This guarantees the integrity of the key agreement process. It
is thus another type of verification method, even though descriptions of the process
might not use the words "verification" and "proof."
This section describes the formal syntax for DIDs and DID URLs. The term
"generic" is used to differentiate the syntax defined here from syntax defined
by specificDID methods in their respective specifications.
The following is the ABNF definition using the syntax in [RFC5234], which
defines ALPHA and DIGIT. All other rule names not
defined in this ABNF are defined in [RFC3986].
The grammar currently allows an empty method-specific-id, e.g.,
did:example: would be a valid DID that could identify the
DID method itself.
3.1.2 Method-Specific Syntax
A DID method specification MUST further restrict the generic DID
syntax by defining its own method-name and its own
method-specific-id syntax. For more information, see Section
§ 7. Methods.
3.1.3 Normalization
For the broadest interoperability, make DID normalization as simple and
universal as possible:
Case sensitivity and normalization of the value of the
method-specific-id rule in Section
§ 3.1.1 Generic DID SyntaxMUST be defined by the governing
DID method specification.
3.1.4 Persistence
A DID is expected to be persistent and immutable. That is, a DID
is bound exclusively and permanently to its one and only subject. Even after a
DID is deactivated, it is intended that it never be repurposed.
Note
Ideally, a DID would be a completely abstract decentralized identifier
(like a UUID) that could be bound to multiple underlying verifiable
data registries over time, thus maintaining its persistence independent of
any particular system. However, registering the same identifier on multiple
verifiable data registries introduces extremely hard entityship and
start-of-authority (SOA) problems. It also greatly increases implementation
complexity for developers.
To avoid these issues, developers should refer to the Decentralized
Characteristics Rubric [DID-RUBRIC] to decide which DID method best
addresses the needs of the use case.
Note
Although not included in this version, future versions of this specification
might support a DID documentequivID property to establish
verifiable equivalence relations between DIDs representing the same
subject on multiple verifiable data registries. Such equivalence relations can
produce the practical equivalent of a single persistent abstract DID.
3.2 DID URL Syntax
3.2.1 Generic DID URL Syntax
A DID URL always identifies a resource to be located. It can be
used, for example, to identify a specific part of a DID document.
This following is the ABNF definition using the syntax in [RFC5324]. It
builds on the did scheme defined in § 3.1.1 Generic DID Syntax. The path-abempty and
fragment components are identical to the ABNF rules defined in
[RFC3986], and the did-query component is derived from the
query ABNF rule.
This specification reserves the semicolon (;) character for
possible future use as a sub-delimiter for parameters as described in
[MATRIX-URIS].
3.2.2 Generic DID URL Parameters
The DID URL syntax supports a simple, generalized format for parameters
based on the query component (See § 3.2.5 Query). The ABNF above
specifies the basic syntax (the param rule) but does not specify
any concrete parameter names.
Some generic DID parameter names (for example, for service selection) are
completely independent of any specific DID method and MUST always
function the same way for all DIDs. Other DID parameter names (for
example, for versioning) MAY be supported by certain DID methods, but
MUST operate uniformly across those DID methods that do support them.
The following table defines a set of generic DID parameter names.
Generic DID Parameter Name
Description
hl
A resource hash of the DID document to add integrity protection, as
specified in [HASHLINK].
service
Identifies a service from the DID document by service ID.
version-id
Identifies a specific version of a DID document to be resolved (the
version ID could be sequential, or a UUID, or method-specific). Note that
this parameter might not be supported by all DID methods.
version-time
Identifies a certain version timestamp of a DID document to be resolved.
That is, the DID document that was valid for a DID at a certain
time. Note that this parameter might not be supported by all DID methods.
Additional considerations for processing these parameters are discussed in
[?DID-RESOLUTION].
Two example DID URLs using the service and
version-time generic DID parameters are shown below.
Example 3: A DID URL with a 'service' DID parameter
did:foo:21tDAKCERh95uGgKbJNHYp?service=agent
Example 4: A DID URL with a 'version-time' DID parameter
Adding a DID parameter to a DID URL means that the parameter becomes part
of an identifier for a resource (the DID document or other).
Alternatively, the DID resolution and the DID URL dereferencing
functions can also be influenced by passing input metadata to a DID
resolver that are not part of the DID URL. (See § 8.3
Metadata Structure
). Such options could for example control caching
or the desired encoding of a resolution result. This is comparable to HTTP,
where certain parameters could either be included in an HTTP URL, or
alternatively passed as HTTP headers during the dereferencing process. The
important distinction is that DID parameters that are part of the DID URL
should be used to specify what resource is being identified,
whereas DID resolution options that are not part of the DID URL
should be use to control how that resource is resolved or
dereferenced.
DID parameters MAY be used if there is a clear use case where the parameter
needs to be part of a URI that can be used as a link, or as a resource in
RDF / JSON-LD documents.
DID parameters SHOULD NOT be used if there are already other, equivalent ways of
constructing URIs that fulfill the same purpose (for example, using other
syntactical constructs such as URI query strings or URI fragments).
DID parameters SHOULD NOT be used if the same functionality can be expressed by
passing options to a DID resolver, and if there is no need to construct a
URI for use as a link, or as a resource in RDF / JSON-LD documents.
3.2.3 Method-Specific DID URL Parameters
A DID method specification MAY specify additional method-specific
parameter names. A method-specific parameter name MUST be prefixed by the method
name, as defined by the method-name rule.
For example, if the method did:foo: defines the parameter bar, the
parameter name must be foo:bar. An example DID URL using
this method and this method-specific parameter would be as shown below.
Both DID method namespaces and method-specific parameter namespaces MAY
include colons, so they might be partitioned hierarchically, as defined by a
DID method specification. The following example DID URL
illustrates both.
Issue 36: Details on the use of method-specific DID parameters discuss
Review what exactly we want to say about method-specific parameters
defined by one method but used in a DID URL with a different method.
Also discuss hierarchical method namespaces in DID parameter names.
In order to maximize interoperability, implementers are urged to ensure that
DID fragments are interpreted in the same way across representations (as
described in § 6. Core Representations). For example, while
JSON Pointer [RFC6901] can be used in a DID fragment, it will not
be interpreted in the same way across representations.
Additional semantics for fragment identifiers, which are compatible with and
layered upon the semantics in this section, are described for JSON-LD
representations in Section § B.2 application/did+ld+json.
3.2.7 Relative DID URLs
A relative DID URL is any URL value in a DID document that does not start
with did:<method-name>:<method-specific-id>. More
specifically, it is any URL value that does not start with the ABNF defined in
Section § 3.1.1 Generic DID Syntax. The contents of the URL typically
refers to a resource in the same DID document. Relative DID URLs
MAY contain relative path components, query parameters, and fragment
identifiers.
When resolving a relative DID URL reference, the algorithm specified in RFC3986 Section 5: Reference ResolutionMUST
be used. The base URI value is the DID that is
associated with the DID subject, see Section § 5.2 DID Subject.
The scheme is did. The authority
is a combination of <method-name>:<method-specific-id>, and
the path, query, and fragment
values are those defined in Section § 3.2.4 Path, Section § 3.2.5 Query, and Section § 3.2.6 Fragment, respectively.
Relative DID URLs are often used to identify verification methods and
services in a DID Document without having to use absolute URLs, which
tend to be more verbose than necessary.
{
"@context": "https://www.w3.org/ns/did/v1",
"id": "did:example:123456789abcdefghi",
"publicKey": [{
"id": "did:example:123456789abcdefghi#key-1",
"type": "Ed25519VerificationKey2018",
"controller": "did:example:123456789abcdefghi",
"publicKeyBase58": "H3C2AVvLMv6gmMNam3uVAjZpfkcJCwDwnZn6z3wXmqPV"
}, ...],
"authentication": [
// a relative DID URL used to reference a verification method above
"#key-1"
]
}
In the example above, the relative DID URL value will be transformed to an
absolute DID URL value of did:example:123456789abcdefghi#key-1.
4. Data Model
This specification defines an abstract data model for DID documents,
independent of any specific representation. This section provides a
high-level description of the data model, a set of requirements for
representations, and a set of requirements for extensibility.
4.1 Definition
A DID document consists of a collection of property-value pairs. The
definitions of each of these properties are specified in section
§ 5. Core Properties. Specific representations are defined in section
§ 6. Core Representations.
4.2 Representations
Following are the requirements for representations.
A representation MUST define an unambiguous encoding and decoding of all
properties and their associated values as defined in this specification. This
means anything you can represent in the DID document data model can be
represented in any compliant representation.
The representation MUST be associated with an IANA-registered MIME type.
The representation MUST define fragment processing rules for its MIME type that
are conformant with the fragment processing rules defined in section
§ 3.2.6 Fragment of this specification.
The data model supports two types of extensibility.
For maximum interoperability, it is RECOMMENDED that extensions use the official
W3C DID Core Registries mechanism [DID-SPEC-REGISTRIES]. The use of this
mechanism for new properties or other extensions is the only specified method
that ensures that two different representations will be able to work together.
Representations MAY define other extensibility mechanisms including methods for
decentralized extensions. Such extension mechanisms MUST support lossless
conversion into any other conformant representation.
Note
It is always possible for two specific implementations to agree out-of-band to
use a mutually understood extension or representation that is not recorded in
the DID Core Registries [DID-SPEC-REGISTRIES]; interoperability between such
implementations and the larger ecosystem will be less reliable.
5. Core Properties
A DID points to a DID document. DID documents are the
serialization of the data model outlined in Section § 4. Data Model.
The following sections define the properties in a DID document,
including whether these properties are required or optional.
5.1
Identifiers
Identifiers are used in the data model to identify specific instances of people,
organizations, devices, keys, services, and things in general. Identifiers are
typically URLs, or more generally, URIs. Non-URI-based identifiers
are not advised because, while the data model supports them, they are not easy
to use with other Internet-based identifiers.
DID method specifications can create intermediate representations of a
DID document that do not contain the id key, such as when a
DID resolver is performing DID resolution. However, the fully
resolved DID document always contains a valid id property.
The value of id in the resolved DID document is expected to
match the DID that was resolved.
5.3 Verification Methods
A DID document can express verification methods, such as
cryptographic keys, which can be used to authenticate or authorize interactions
with the DID subject or associated parties. The information expressed
often includes globally unambiguous identifiers and public key material, which
can be used to verify digital signatures. For example, a public key can be
used as a verification method with respect to a digital signature; in such
usage, it verifies that the signer possessed the associated private key.
Verification methods might take many parameters. An example of this is a set
of five cryptographic keys from which any three are required to contribute to
a threshold signature. Methods need not be cryptographic. An example of this
might be the contact information for a biometric service provider that compares
a purported DID controller against a candidate biometric vector.
A DID documentMAY include a verificationMethod property.
verificationMethod
If a DID document includes a verificationMethod property,
the value of the property MUST be an array of verification method objects.
Each verification method object MUST have the id, type,
controller, and specific verification method properties. The
verification method objects MAY include additional properties.
The value of the id property MUST be a URI. The array of
verification methods MUST NOT contain multiple entries with the same
id. If the array of verification methods contains multiple
entries with the same id, a DID document processor MUST
produce an error.
The value of the type property MUST be exactly one verification
method type. In order to maximize global interoperability, the
verification method type SHOULD be registered in the
[DID-SPEC-REGISTRIES].
The value of the controller property, MUST be a valid DID.
In order to maximize global interoperability, the verification method properties
SHOULD be registered in the [DID-SPEC-REGISTRIES].
A public key is a verification method.
Public keys are used for digital signatures, encryption and other cryptographic
operations, which in turn are the basis for purposes such as authentication
(see Section § 5.3.3.1 authentication) or establishing secure
communication with service endpoints (see Section
§ 5.4 Service Endpoints). As well, public keys can play a role in
authorization mechanisms of DID method operations (see Section
§ 7.2 Method Operations), which can be defined by DID method
specifications.
Public keys can be included in a DID document using the
publicKey or authentication properties, depending on
what they are to be used for. Each public key has an identifier (id)
of its own, a type, and a controller, as well as
other properties that depend on the type of key it is.
This specification strives to limit the number of formats for expressing public
key material in a DID Document to the fewest possible, to increase the
likelihood of interoperability. The fewer formats that implementers have to
implement, the more likely it will be that they will support all of them. This
approach attempts to strike a delicate balance between ease of implementation
and supporting formats that have historically had broad deployment. The specific
types of key formats that are supported in this specification are listed below.
If a DID document includes a publicKey property, the value
of the property MUST be an array of public key objects. Each public key object
MUST have the type, controller, and specific public
key properties, and MUST have an id property. The public key
objects MAY include additional properties.
The value of the id property MUST be a URI. The array of
public keys MUST NOT contain multiple entries with the same id. In
this case, a DID document processor MUST produce an error.
The value of the type property MUST be exactly one public key type.
For a registry of available key types and formats, see [DID-SPEC-REGISTRIES].
The value of the controller property, which identifies the
controller of the corresponding private key, MUST be a valid DID.
Note: Key controller(s) and DID controller(s)
The semantics of the controller property are the same when the
subject of the relationship is the DID document as when the subject
of the relationship is a key. Since a key can't control itself, and the
key controller cannot be inferred from the DID document, it is
necessary to explicitly express the identity of the controller of the key
(which may be the DID controller or DID subject). The
difference is that the value of controller on a key is not
necessarily a DID controller. DID controller(s) are
expressed using the controller property on the top level of
the DID document; see Section
§ 5.3.2
Authorization and Delegation
.
The value of the id property MAY be structured as a
compound key. This is
especially useful for integrating with existing key management systems and key
formats such as JWK. It is
RECOMMENDED that JWKkid values are set to the
public key fingerprint. It is
RECOMMENDED that verification methods that use JWKs to represent their public
keys utilize the value of kid as their fragment identifier. See the
first key in EXAMPLE 15 for an
example of a public key with a compound key identifier.
If a public key does not exist in the DID document, it MUST be assumed
the key was revoked or is invalid.
The DID documentMUST NOT express revoked keys using a
verification relationship.
Each
DID method specification is expected to detail how revocation is
performed and tracked.
Public keys of all types MUST be expressed in either JSON Web Key (JWK) format
using the publicKeyJwk property or one of the formats listed in the
table below. Public key expression MUST NOT use any other key format.
Issue
The Working Group is still debating whether the base encoding format used will
be Base58 (Bitcoin) [BASE58], base64url [RFC7515], or base16 (hex)
[RFC4648]. The entries in the table below currently assume PEM and Base58
(Bitcoin), but might change to base64url and/or base16 (hex) after the group
achieves consensus on this particular issue.
Issue
The Working Group is still debating whether secp256k1 Schnorr public key values
will be elaborated upon in this specification and if so, how they will be
expressed and encoded.
Key Type
Support
RSA
RSA public key values MUST either be encoded as a JWK or be encoded in
Privacy Enhanced Mail (PEM) format using the publicKeyPem property.
ed25519
Ed25519 public key values MUST either be encoded as a JWK or be encoded as
the raw 32-byte public key value in Base58 Bitcoin format using the
publicKeyBase58 property.
secp256k1-koblitz
Secp256k1 Koblitz public key values MUST either be encoded as a JWK or be
encoded as the raw 33-byte public key value in Base58 Bitcoin format using the
publicKeyBase58 property.
secp256r1
Secp256r1 public key values MUST either be encoded as a JWK or be encoded as
the raw 32-byte public key value encoded in Base58 Bitcoin format using the
publicKeyBase58 property.
Curve25519
Curve25519 (also known as X25519) public key values MUST either be encoded as
a JWK or be encoded as the raw 32-byte public key value in Base58 Bitcoin format
using the publicKeyBase58 property.
A key MAY be embedded or referenced in a DID document.
For example, the authentication property might refer to keys in
both ways, as shown in the example below.
{
...
"authentication": [
// this key is referenced, it may be used with more than one verification relationship
"did:example:123456789abcdefghi#keys-1",
// this key is embedded and may *only* be used for authentication
{
"id": "did:example:123456789abcdefghi#keys-2",
"type": "Ed25519VerificationKey2018",
"controller": "did:example:123456789abcdefghi",
"publicKeyBase58": "H3C2AVvLMv6gmMNam3uVAjZpfkcJCwDwnZn6z3wXmqPV"
}
],
...
}
The steps to use when processing a publicKey property in a
DID document are:
Let value be the data associated with the publicKey
property and initialize result to null.
If value is an object, the key material is embedded. Set
result to value.
If value is a string, the key is included by reference. Assume
value is a URL.
Dereference the URL and retrieve the publicKey properties
associated with the URL. For example, process the publicKey
property at the top-level of the dereferenced document.
Iterating through each public key object, if the id property of the
object matches value, set result to the object.
If result does not contain at least the id,
type, and controller properties, as well as any
mandatory public cryptographic material, as determined by the type
property of result, throw an error.
Note
Caching and expiration of the keys in a DID document is entirely the
responsibility of DID resolvers and other clients. For more information,
see Section § 8.
Resolution
.
5.3.2
Authorization and Delegation
Authorization is the mechanism used to state how operations are performed
on behalf of the DID subject. Delegation is the mechanism that the
subject uses to authorize others to act on their behalf.
Note: Authorization vs authentication
Note that Authorization is separate from § 5.3.3.1 authentication.
This is particularly important for key recovery in the case of key loss,
when the subject no longer has access to their keys, or key compromise,
where the DID controller's trusted third parties need to override
malicious activity by an attacker. See Section
§ 9.
Security Considerations
.
A DID document MAY include a controller property to indicate
that there are DID controller(s) other than the DID subject.
If so:
controller
The value of the controller property MUST be a valid DID
or an array of valid DIDs. The corresponding DID document(s)
SHOULD contain verification relationships that explicitly permit the
use of certain verification methods for specific purposes.
Each DID methodMUST define how authorization and delegation are
implemented, including any necessary cryptographic operations.
There are at least two suggested methods for implementing Authorization and
Delegation, which may be layered:
A verifiable data registry could implement a capabilities-based
approach enabling further fine-grained control of authorization and
delegation.
Example 17: DID document with a controller property
{
"@context": "https://www.w3.org/ns/did/v1",
"id": "did:example:123456789abcdefghi",
"controller": "did:example:bcehfew7h32f32h7af3",
"service": [{
// used to retrieve Verifiable Credentials
associated with the DID
"type": "VerifiableCredentialService",
"serviceEndpoint": "https://example.com/vc/"
}]
}
Authentication is a verification relationship which an entity can use
to prove it is the DID subject or acting on behalf of the
DID Subject as a DID Controller. The verifier of an
authentication attempt can check if the authenticating party is presenting a
valid proof of authentication, that is, that they are who they say they are.
Note that a successful authentication on its own might or might not confer
authority; that is up to the verifying application.
Note: Uses of authentication
If authentication is established, it is up to the DID method or other
application to decide what to do with that information. A particular DID
method could decide that authenticating as a DID controller is
sufficient to, for example, update or delete the DID document. Another
DID method could require different keys, or a different verification
method entirely, to be presented in order to update or delete the DID
document than that used to authenticate. In other words, what is done
after the authentication check is out of scope for the DID data
model, but DID methods and applications are expected to define this
themselves.
The authentication property is a relationship between the DID
subject and a set of verification methods (such as, but not limited to,
public keys). It means that the DID subject has authorized some set of
verification methods (per the value of the authentication
property) for the purpose of authentication. The value of the
authentication property SHOULD be an array of verification
methods. Each verification methodMAY be embedded or referenced. An
example of a verification method is a public key
(see Section § 5.3.1 Public Keys).
This statement is useful to any authentication verifier that needs
to check to see if an entity that is attempting to authenticate is, in fact,
presenting a valid proof of authentication. When a verifier receives
some data (in some protocol-specific format) that contains a proof that was
made for the purpose of "authentication", and that says that an entity is
identified by the DID, then that verifier checks to ensure
that the proof can be verified using a verification method (e.g.,
public key) listed under authentication in the
DID Document.
Example 18: Authentication property
containing three verification methods
{
"@context": "https://www.w3.org/ns/did/v1",
"id": "did:example:123456789abcdefghi",
...
"authentication": [
// this method can be used to authenticate as did:...fghi
"did:example:123456789abcdefghi#keys-1",
// this method can be used to authenticate as did:...fghi
"did:example:123456789abcdefghi#biometric-1",
// this method is *only* authorized for authentication, it may not// be used for any other proof purpose, so its full description is// embedded here rather than using only a reference
{
"id": "did:example:123456789abcdefghi#keys-2",
"type": "Ed25519VerificationKey2018",
"controller": "did:example:123456789abcdefghi",
"publicKeyBase58": "H3C2AVvLMv6gmMNam3uVAjZpfkcJCwDwnZn6z3wXmqPV"
}
],
...
}
5.3.3.2 assertionMethod
The assertionMethod property is used to express a verification
relationship which indicates that a verification method can be
used to assert a statement on behalf of the DID subject. The
verifier of an assertionMethod attempt can check proof
of a statement asserted on behalf of the DID subject by checking if
the verification method used with the proof is contained in the
assertionMethod of the DID Document.
Note: Uses of assertionMethod
If assertionMethod is established, it is up to the
verifier to validate that the verification method used for
providing proof of an assertion is valid and is associated with the
assertionMethodverification relationship. An example of
when this property is useful is during the processing of a verifiable
credential by a verifier. During validation, a verifier
checks to see if a verifiable credential has been signed by the DID
Subject by checking that the verification method used to
assert the proof is associated with the assertionMethod property
in the corresponding DID Document.
Example 19: Assertion method property
containing three verification methods
{
"@context": "https://www.w3.org/ns/did/v1",
"id": "did:example:123456789abcdefghi",
...
"assertionMethod": [
// this method can be used to assert statements as did:...fghi
"did:example:123456789abcdefghi#keys-1",
// this method is *only* authorized for assertion of statements, it may not// be used for any other verification relationship, so its full description is// embedded here rather than using only a reference
{
"id": "did:example:123456789abcdefghi#keys-2",
"type": "Ed25519VerificationKey2018",
"controller": "did:example:123456789abcdefghi",
"publicKeyBase58": "H3C2AVvLMv6gmMNam3uVAjZpfkcJCwDwnZn6z3wXmqPV"
}
],
}
...
5.3.3.3 keyAgreement
The keyAgreement property is used to express a
verification relationship which an entity can use to engage in key
agreement protocols on behalf of the DID subject. The
counterparties in a key agreement protocol can use the
keyAgreementverification relationship to check whether a
party performing a key agreement protocol on behalf of the DID subject
is authorized by checking if the verification method used during the
key agreement protocol is associated with the keyAgreement
property contained in the DID Document.
Note: Uses of keyAgreement
It is up to a verifier to validate that the verification method
used during a key agreement exchange is valid and is associated with the
keyAgreement property. An example of when this property is useful
is during the establishment of a TLS session on behalf of the DID
Subject. In this case, the counterparty checks that the verification
method used during the protocol handshake is associated with the
keyAgreement property in the DID Document.
Example 20: Key agreement property
containing three verification methods
{
"@context": "https://www.w3.org/ns/did/v1",
"id": "did:example:123456789abcdefghi",
...
"keyAgreement": [
// this method can be used to perform key agreement as did:...fghi
"did:example:123456789abcdefghi#keys-1",
// this method is *only* authorized for key agreement usage, it may not// be used for any other verification relationship, so its full description is// embedded here rather than using only a reference
{
"id": "did:example:123#zC9ByQ8aJs8vrNXyDhPHHNNMSHPcaSgNpjjsBYpMMjsTdS",
"type": "X25519KeyAgreementKey2019",
"controller": "did:example:123",
"publicKeyBase58": "9hFgmPVfmBZwRvFEyniQDBkz9LmV7gDEqytWyGZLmDXE"
}
],
}
...
5.3.3.4 capabilityInvocation
The capabilityInvocation property is used to express a
verification relationship which an entity can use to invoke
capabilities as the DID subject or on behalf of the DID subject.
A capability is an expression of an action that the DID subject is
authorized to take. The verifier of a capability invocation attempt
can check the validity of a capability by checking if the
verification method used with the proof is contained in the
capabilityInvocation property of the DID Document.
Note: Uses of capabilityInvocation
It is the responsibility of a verifier to ensure that the
verification method used when presenting a capability is invoked and is
associated with the capabilityInvocation property. An example of
when this property is useful is when a DID subject chooses to invoke
their capability to start a vehicle through the combined usage of a
verification method and the StartCar capability. In this
example, the vehicle would be the verifier and would need to verify
that the verification method exists in the
capabilityInvocation property.
A DID documentMAY include an capabilityInvocation
property. The capabilityInvocation property is an additional
example of a verification relationship.
Example:
Example 21: Capability invocation property
containing two verification methods
{
"@context": "https://www.w3.org/ns/did/v1", "id":
"did:example:123456789abcdefghi",
...
"capabilityInvocation: [
// this method can be used to invoke capabilities as did:...fghi
"did:example:123456789abcdefghi#keys-1",
// this method is *only* authorized for capability invocation usage, it may not// be used for any other verification relationship, so its full description is// embedded here rather than using only a reference
{
"id": "did:example:123456789abcdefghi#keys-2",
"type": "Ed25519VerificationKey2018",
"controller": "did:example:123456789abcdefghi",
"publicKeyBase58": "H3C2AVvLMv6gmMNam3uVAjZpfkcJCwDwnZn6z3wXmqPV"
}
],
}
...
5.3.3.5 capabilityDelegation
The capabilityDelegation property is used to express a
verification relationship which an entity can use to grant capabilities
as the DID subject or on behalf of the DID subject to other
capability invokers. The verifier of a
capabilityDelegation attempt can check the validity of a
capability to grant invocation of a capability by checking if the
verification method used with the proof is contained in the
capabilityDelegation section of the DID Document.
Note: Uses of capabilityDelegation
It is up to a verifier to validate that the verification method
used when presenting a capability is valid and is associated with the
capabilityDelegation property. An example of when this property
is useful is when a DID Subject chooses to grant their capability to
start a vehicle through the combined usage of a verification method and
the StartCar capability to a capability invoker.
A DID documentMAY include an capabilityDelegation
property. The capabilityDelegation property is an additional
example of a verification relationship.
Example:
Example 22: Capability Delegation property
containing three verification methods
{
"@context": "https://www.w3.org/ns/did/v1", "id":
"did:example:123456789abcdefghi",
...
"capabilityDelegation": [
// this method can be used to perform capabilty delegation as did:...fghi
"did:example:123456789abcdefghi#keys-1",
// this method is *only* authorized for granting capabilities it may not// be used for any other verification relationship, so its full description is// embedded here rather than using only a reference
{
"id": "did:example:123456789abcdefghi#keys-2",
"type": "Ed25519VerificationKey2018",
"controller": "did:example:123456789abcdefghi",
"publicKeyBase58": "H3C2AVvLMv6gmMNam3uVAjZpfkcJCwDwnZn6z3wXmqPV"
}
],
}
...
5.4 Service Endpoints
Service endpoints are used in DID documents to express ways of
communicating with the DID subject or associated entities. Services
listed in the DID document can contain information about privacy
preserving messaging services, or more public information, such as social media
accounts, personal websites, and email addresses although this is discouraged.
See § 10.1
Keep Personally-Identifiable Information (PII) Private
for
additional details. The metadata associated with services are often
service-specific. For example, the metadata associated with an encrypted
messaging service can express how to initiate the encrypted link before
messaging begins.
Pointers to services are expressed using the service property.
Each service has its own id and type, as well as a
serviceEndpoint with a URI or other properties describing
the service.
If a DID document includes a service property, the value of
the property SHOULD be an array of service endpoint objects. Each
service endpointMUST have id, type, and
serviceEndpoint properties, and MAY include additional properties.
The value of the id property MUST be a URI.
The array of service endpointsMUST NOT contain multiple entries
with the same id. In this case, a DID document processor
MUST produce an error.
The value of the serviceEndpoint property MUST be a JSON-LD object
or a valid URI conforming to [RFC3986] and normalized according to the
rules in section 6 of [RFC3986] and to any normalization rules in its
applicable URI scheme specification.
It is expected that the service endpoint protocol is published in an open
standard specification.
If a DID document includes an updated property, the value of
the property MUST follow the same formatting rules as the created
property, as outlined in Section § 5.5 Created.
All concrete representations of a DID documentMUST be serialized using a
deterministic mapping that is able to be unambiguously parsed into the data
model defined in this specification. All serialization methods MUST define rules
for the bidirectional translation of a DID document both into and out of
the representation in question. As a consequence, translation between any two
representations MUST be done by parsing the source format into a DID
document model (described in Sections § 4. Data Model and § 5. Core Properties) and then serializing the DID document model
into the target representation. An implementation MUST NOT convert between
representations without first parsing to a DID document model.
Although syntactic mappings are provided for JSON, JSON-LD, and CBOR here,
applications and services MAY use any other data representation syntax that is
capable of expressing the data model, such as XML or YAML.
Producers MUST indicate which representation of a document has been used via a
media type in the document's metadata. Consumers MUST determine which
representation a document is in via the content-type DID resolver
metadata field. (See § 8.1
DID Resolution
). Consumers MUST NOT
determine the representation of a document through its content alone.
This requirement depends on the return of DID document metadata that still needs
to be defined by this specification. Once defined, that should be linked from
here.
The production and consumption rules in this section apply to all
implementations seeking to be fully compatible with independent implementations
of the specification. Deployments of this specification MAY use a custom
agreed-upon representation, including localized rules for handling properties
not listed in the registry. See section § 4.3 Extensibility
for more information.
A link to a section on extensibility and conformance as it applies to data
representations should be added here once that section has been written.
6.1
JSON
When producing and consuming DID documents that are in plain JSON (as indicated
by a content-type of application/did+json in the
resolver metadata), the following rules MUST be followed.
6.1.1 Production
A DID documentMUST be a single JSON
object conforming to [RFC8259]. All top-level properties of the DID
documentMUST be represented by using the property name as the name of the
member of the JSON object. The values of properties of the data model described
in Section § 4. Data Model, including all extensions, MUST be encoded
in JSON [RFC8259] by mapping property values to JSON types as follows:
In this section we use the term "property name" to refer to the string that
represents the property itself, but this specification still needs to define a
concrete term for such aspects of a property of a DID document.
Numeric values representable as IEEE754 MUST be represented as a
Number type.
An "empty" value is not specified by this document. It seems to imply a null
value, but this is unclear.
All properties of the DID documentMUST be included in
the root object. Properties MAY define additional data sub structures subject
to the value representation rules in the list above.
The member name @contextMUST NOT be used as this property is
reserved for JSON-LD producers.
In this section and we use the term "property name" to refer to the string that
represents the property itself, but this specification still needs to define a
concrete term for such aspects of a property of a DID document. We also need a
concrete term for "the document itself" as opposed to "the collection or
properties of the document".
The top-level element MUST be a JSON object. Any other data type at the top
level is an error and MUST be rejected. The top-level JSON object represents
the DID document, and all members of this object are properties of the
DID document. The object member name is the property name, and the
member value is interpreted as follows:
Number typesMUST interpreted as numeric
values representable as IEEE754.
An Array typeMUST be interpreted as a
Sequence or Unordered set, depending on the definition of the property for this
value.
An Object typeMUST be interpreted as a
sets of properties.
A null literalMUST be interpreted as an
Empty value.
String typesMUST be interpreted as
Strings, which may be further parsed depending on the definition of the property
for this value into more specific data types such as URIs, date stamps, or other
values.
This specification needs to define clear and consistent rules for how to handle
unknown data members on consumption, and this section needs to be updated with
that decision.
When producing and consuming DID documents that are in JSON-LD (as indicated by
a content-type of application/did+ld+json in the
resolver metadata), the following rules MUST be followed.
The @id and @type keywords are aliased to
id and type respectively, enabling developers to use
this specification as idiomatic JSON.
Even though JSON-LD allows any IRI as node identifiers, DID documents
are explicitly restricted to only describe DIDs. This means that the value of
idMUST be a valid DID and not any other kind of IRI.
Data types, such as integers, dates, units of measure, and URLs, are
automatically typed to provide stronger type guarantees for use cases that
require them.
6.2.1
Production
The DID document is serialized following the rules in the JSON processor,
with one addition: DID documentsMUST include the @context
property.
@context
The value of the @context property MUST be one or more URIs,
where the value of the first URI is
https://www.w3.org/ns/did/v1. All members of the
@context property MUST exist be in the DID properties extension
registry.
This specification defines globally interoperable documents, and the requirement
that the context value be in the verifiable data registry means that different JSON-LD
processors can consume the document without having to dereference anything in
the context field. However, a pair of producers and consumers can have local
extension agreements. This needs to be clarified in a section on extensibility
and linked here when available.
6.2.2
Consumption
The top-level element MUST be a JSON object. Any other data type at the top
level is an error and MUST be rejected. This top-level JSON object is
interpreted using JSON-LD processing under the rules of the defined
@context fields.
@context
The value of the @context property MUST be one or more URIs,
where the value of the first URI is
https://www.w3.org/ns/did/v1. If more than one URI is
provided, the URIsMUST be interpreted as an ordered set. It is
RECOMMENDED that dereferencing each URI results in a document containing
machine-readable information about the context.
Unknown object member names MUST be ignored as unknown properties.
This specification needs to define clear and consistent rules for how to handle
unknown data members on consumption, and this section needs to be updated with
that decision.
6.3 CBOR
Like Javascript Object Notation (JSON) [RFC8259], Concise Binary Object
Representation (CBOR) [RFC7049] defines a set of formatting rules for the
portable representation of structured data. CBOR is a more concise,
machine-readable, language-independent data interchange format that is
self-describing and has built-in semantics for interoperability. With specific
constraints, CBOR can support all JSON data types (including JSON-LD) for
translation between the DID document model (described in Data Model and DID Documents) and other core
representations.
Concise Data Definition Language (CDDL) [RFC8610] is a notation used to
express Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR), and by extension JSON Data
Structures. The following notation expresses the DID Document model in CBOR
representation with specific constraints for deterministic mappings between
other core representations.
Example 26: DID Document data model for CBOR expressed in CDDL notation
DID-document = {
? @context : uri
id : did
? publicKey : [* publicKey ]
? authentication : [ *did // *publicKey // *tstr ]
? service : [ + service ]
? controller : did / [ *did ]
? created : time
? updated : time
proof : any
}
publicKey = {
id : did
type : text
controller : uri
}
did = tstr .pcre "^did\\:(?<method-name>[a-z0-9]{2,})\\:(?<method-specific-id>[A-Za-z0-9\\.\\-\\:\\_]+)"
did-url = tstr .pcre "^did\\:(?<method-name>[a-z0-9]{2,})\\:(?<method-specific-id>[A-Za-z0-9\\.\\-\\:\\_]+)\\;(?<path>[A-Za-z0-9\\/)(?<query>\\?[a-z0-9\\=\\&])#(?<fragment>.+)"
service = {
id : did-url
type : text
serviceEndpoint : uri
? description : text
* tstr => any
}
6.3.1 Production
When producing DID Documents that are represented as CBOR, in addition to the
suggestions in section 3.9 of the CBOR [RFC7049] specification for
deterministic mappings, the following constraints of the DID Document model
MUST be followed:
Map keys MUST be strings.
Integer encoding MUST be as short as possible.
The expression of lengths in CBOR major types 2 through 5 MUST be as short as
possible.
All floating point values MUST be encoded as 64-bits, even for integral values.
Example 27: An example DID Document represented as contrained CBOR and exported in diagnostic annotation mode for easy readibility
When consuming DID Documents that are represented as CBOR, in addition to the
suggestions in section 3.9 of the CBOR [RFC7049] specification for
deterministic mappings the following constraints of the DID Document model MUST
be followed:
The keys in every map must be sorted lowest value to highest. Sorting is
performed on the bytes of the representation of the keys.
Indefinite-length items must be made into definite-length items.
6.3.3 CBOR Extensibility
In CBOR, one point of extensibility is with the use of CBOR tags. [RFC7049]
defines a basic set of data types, as well as a tagging mechanism that enables
extending the set of data types supported via the CBOR Tag
Registry. This allows for tags to enhance the semantic description of the
data that follows.
6.3.3.1 DagCBOR
DagCBOR is a further restricted subset of CBOR for representing the DID Document
as a Directed Acyclic Graph model using canonical CBOR encoding as noted above
with additional constraits. DagCBOR requires that there exist a single way of
encoding any given object, and that encoded forms contain no superfluous data
that may be ignored or lost in a round-trip decode/encode. When producing and
consuming DID Documents representing in DagCBOR the following rules MUST be
followed
Use no CBOR tags other than the CID tag (42)
Example 28: DID Document as DagCBOR same as the previous example, but serialized to JSON for easy readability
A DID method specification MUST define exactly one method-specific
DID scheme, identified by exactly one method name. For more information,
see the method-name rule in Section
§ 3.1.1 Generic DID Syntax.
Because the method name is part of the DID, short method names are
preferred; the method name SHOULD be five characters or less. The method name
might reflect the name of the verifiable data registry to which the
DID method specification applies. For more information, see Section
§ 7.1 Method Schemes.
The DID method specification for the method-specific DID schemeMUST specify how to generate the method-specific-id component of a
DID. The method-specific-id value MUST be able to be
generated without the use of a centralized registry service. The
method-specific-id value SHOULD be globally unique by itself. The
DID, as defined by the did rule in Section
§ 3.1.1 Generic DID Syntax, MUST be globally unique.
If needed, a method-specific DID schemeMAY define multiple
method-specific-id formats. It is RECOMMENDED that a
method-specific DID scheme define as few method-specific-id
formats as possible.
The method-specific-id format MAY include colons, which might be
used by DID methods for various purposes, such as establishing
hierarchically partitioned namespaces, or identifying specific instances or
parts of the verifiable data registry. The use of colons MUST comply
syntactically with the method-specific-id ABNF rule and their use
is entirely method-specific. Implementers are advised to avoid
assuming any meanings or behaviors associated with a colon that are
generically applicable to all DID methods.
The authors of a new DID method specification SHOULD use a method name
that is unique among all DID method names known to them at the time of
publication.
Because there is no central authority for allocating or approving DID
method names, there is no way to know for certain if a specific DID
method name is unique. To help with this challenge, a non-authoritative
list of known DID method names and their associated specifications is
maintained in the DID Methods Registry, which is part of [DID-SPEC-REGISTRIES].
The DID Methods Registry is a tool for implementors to use when coming to
consensus on a new method name, as well as an informative reference for software
developers implementing DID resolvers for different DID methods.
For more information about DID resolvers see Section
§ 8.
Resolution
. The DID Method Registry is not a definitive
or official list of DID methods. Nonetheless, adding DID method
names to the DID Method Registry is encouraged so that other implementors
and members of the community have a place to see an overview of existing
DID methods. The lightweight criteria for inclusion are documented in
[DID-SPEC-REGISTRIES].
7.2 Method Operations
To enable the full functionality of DIDs and DID documents on a
particular verifiable data registry, a DID method specification
MUST specify how a client might be used to perform the create, read, update,
and deactivate operations. Each operation ought to be specified to the level
of detail necessary to build and test interoperable client implementations. In
the event that an operation is not supported, such as update or deactivate,
then it is RECOMMENDED that the DID Method specification state that it
is not supported. These operations can be used to perform all the operations
required of a cryptographic key management system (CKMS), e.g.: key registration,
key replacement, key rotation, key recovery, and key expiration.
Determining the authority of a party to carry out the operations is
method-specific. For example, a DID methodMAY:
use other constructs in the DID Document to decide this, for example,
a verification method specified under capabilityInvocation could be used to
verify the invocation of a capability to update the DID Document.; or
not use the DID Document at all to decide this, but have rules that are
"built into" the method.
7.2.1
Create
The DID method specification MUST specify how a client creates a
DID and its associated DID document on the verifiable data registry,
including all cryptographic operations necessary to establish proof of control.
7.2.2
Read/Verify
The DID method specification MUST specify how a client uses a DID
to request a DID document from the verifiable data registry,
including how the client can verify the authenticity of the response.
7.2.3
Update
The DID method specification MUST specify how a client can update a
DID document on the verifiable data registry, including all cryptographic
operations necessary to establish proof of control, or state that
updates are not possible.
An update to a DID is any change, after creation, in the data used to
produce a DID document. DID Method implementers are responsible
for defining what constitutes an update, and what properties of the DID
document are supported by a given DID method. For example, an update
operation which replaces key material without changing it could be a valid
update that does not result in changes to the DID document.
7.2.4
Deactivate
The DID method specification MUST specify how a client can deactivate a
DID on the verifiable data registry, including all cryptographic
operations necessary to establish proof of deactivation, or state that
deactivation is not possible.
7.3
Interoperability
Interoperability for DID methods will be determined by evaluating each
DID method specification to determine, at a minimum, that the:
Specification is specific, detailed, and complete enough for independent
implementation.
Specification contains sections describing security and privacy considerations.
7.4 Extensibility
7.5
Security Requirements
DID method specifications MUST include their own Security
Considerations sections. This section MUST consider all the requirements
mentioned in section 5 of [RFC3552] (page 27) for the DID operations
defined in the specification.
At least the following forms of attack MUST be considered: eavesdropping,
replay, message insertion, deletion, modification, and man-in-the-middle.
Potential denial of service attacks MUST be identified as well.
If the protocol incorporates cryptographic protection mechanisms, the
DID method specification MUST clearly indicate which portions of the
data are protected and what the protections are, and SHOULD give an indication
to what sorts of attacks the cryptographic protection is susceptible.
For example, integrity only, confidentiality, endpoint authentication, and so
on.
Data which is to be held secret (keying material, random seeds, and so on)
SHOULD be clearly labeled.
If the technology involves authentication, particularly user-host
authentication, the security of the authentication method MUST be clearly
specified.
This section MUST discuss, per Section 5 of [RFC3552], residual risks (such as
the risks from compromise in a related protocol, incorrect implementation, or
cipher) after threat mitigation was deployed.
This section MUST provide integrity protection and update authentication for all
operations required by Section § 7.2 Method Operations.
Where DID methods make use of peer-to-peer computing resources, such as
with all known DLTs, the expected burdens of those resources SHOULD be
discussed in relation to denial of service.
Method-specific endpoint authentication MUST be discussed. Where DID
methods make use of DLTs with varying network topology, sometimes
offered as light node or thin client
implementations to reduce required computing resources, the security assumptions
of the topology available to implementations of the DID methodMUST be
discussed.
DID methodsMUST discuss the policy mechanism by which DIDs are
proven to be uniquely assigned. A DID fits the functional definition of a
URN, as defined in [RFC8141]. That is, a DID is a persistent identifier
that is assigned once to a resource and never reassigned to a different
resource. This is particularly important in a security context because a
DID might be used to identify a specific party subject to a specific set
of authorization rights.
The DID method specification's Privacy Considerations section MUST
discuss any subsection of section 5 of [RFC6973] that could apply in a
method-specific manner. The subsections to consider are: surveillance, stored
data compromise, unsolicited traffic, misattribution, correlation,
identification, secondary use, disclosure, exclusion.
8.
Resolution
This section defines the inputs and outputs of DID resolution and DID
URL dereferencing. These functions are defined in an abstract way. Their
exact implementation is out of scope for this specification, but some
considerations for implementors are discussed in [DID-RESOLUTION].
The DID resolution function resolves a DID into a DID
document by using the "Read" operation of the applicable DID method.
(See § 7.2.2
Read/Verify
.) The details of how this process is
accomplished are outside the scope of this specification, but all conformant
implementations MUST implement a function which has the following abstract form:
The input variables of this function MUST be as follows:
did
A conformant DID as a single string. This is the DID to resolve.
This input is REQUIRED.
did-resolution-input-metadata
A metadata structure consisting of input
options to the resolve function in addition to the did
itself. This input is REQUIRED, but the structure MAY be empty.
The output variables of this function MUST be as follows:
did-resolution-metadata
A metadata structure consisting of values
relating to the results of the DID resolution process. This structure is
REQUIRED and MUST NOT be empty. This metadata typically changes between
invocations of the resolve function as it represents data about the
resolution process itself.
did-document-stream
If the resolution is successful, this MUST be a byte stream of the resolved
DID document in one of the conformant representations. The byte
stream MAY then be parsed by the caller of the resolve function
into a DID document abstract data model, which can in turn be validated
and processed. If the resolution is unsuccessful, this value MUST be an empty
stream.
did-document-metadata
If the resolution is successful, this MUST be a metadata structure. This structure contains
metadata about the DID document contained in the
did-document-stream. This metadata typically does not change
between invocations of the resolve function unless the DID
document changes, as it represents data about the DID document. If
the resolution is unsuccessful, this output MUST be an empty metadata structure.
DID resolver implementations MUST NOT alter the signature of this
function in any way. DID resolver implementations MAY map the
resolve function to a method-specific internal function to perform
the actual DID resolution process. DID resolver implementations
MAY implement and expose additional
functions with different signatures in addition to the resolve
function specified here.
8.2
DID URL Dereferencing
8.3
Metadata Structure
9.
Security Considerations
This section is non-normative.
Note: Note to implementers
During the Working Draft stage, this section focuses on security topics that
should be important in early implementations. The editors are seeking feedback
on threats and threat mitigations that should be reflected in this section or
elsewhere in the spec. DIDs are designed to operate under the general
Internet threat model used by many IETF standards. We assume uncompromised
endpoints, but anticipate that messages could be read or corrupted on the
network. Protecting against an attack when a system is compromised requires
external key-signing hardware (see Section § 9.7
Key Revocation and Recovery
).
9.1
Choosing DID Resolvers
The DID Method Registry (see [DID-SPEC-REGISTRIES] is an informative list of DID method names
and their corresponding DID method specifications. Implementors need to
bear in mind that there is no central authority to mandate which
DID method specification is to be used with any specific
DID method name, but can use the DID Method Registry to make an
informed decision when choosing which DID resolver implementations to
use.
9.2
Binding of Identity
The following sections describe binding identities to DIDs and
DID documents.
Verifying that the id property of the resulting DID document
matches the DID that was resolved.
It should be noted that this process proves control of a DID and
DID document regardless of whether the DID document is signed.
Signatures on DID documents are optional. DID method
specifications SHOULD explain and specify their implementation if applicable.
9.2.2
Proving Control of a Public Key
There are two methods for proving control of the private key corresponding to a
public key description in the DID document: static and dynamic.
The static method is to sign the DID document with the private key. This
proves control of the private key at a time no later than the
DID document was registered. If the DID document is not signed,
control of a public key described in the DID document can still be proven
dynamically as follows:
A DID and DID document do not inherently carry any
PII
(personally-identifiable information). The process of binding a DID to
something in the real world, such as a person or a company, for example with
credentials with the same subject as that DID, is out of scope for this
specification. For more information, see the [VC-DATA-MODEL] instead.
Has had adequate opportunity to revert malicious updates according to the
access control mechanism for the DID method (see Section
§ 5.3.3.1 authentication).
Non-repudiation is further supported if timestamps are included (see Sections
§ 5.5 Created and § 5.6 Updated) and the target DLT
system supports timestamps.
9.5
Notification of DID Document Changes
One mitigation against unauthorized changes to a DID document is
monitoring and actively notifying the DID subject when there are changes.
This is analogous to helping prevent account takeover on conventional
username/password accounts by sending password reset notifications to the email
addresses on file.
In the case of a DID, there is no intermediary registrar or account
provider to generate such notifications. However, if the verifiable data registry
on which the DID is registered directly supports change notifications,
a subscription service can be offered to DID controllers. Notifications
could be sent directly to the relevant service endpoints listed in an
existing DID.
If a DID controller chooses to rely on a third-party monitoring service
(other than the verifiable data registry itself), this introduces another
vector of attack.
9.6
Key and Signature Expiration
In a decentralized identifier architecture, there are no centralized
authorities to enforce key or signature expiration policies. Therefore
DID resolvers and other client applications need to validate that keys
were not expired at the time they were used. Because some use cases might have
legitimate reasons why already-expired keys can be extended, make sure a key
expiration does not prevent any further use of the key, and implementations
of a resolver ought to be compatible with such extension behavior.
9.7
Key Revocation and Recovery
Section § 7.2 Method Operations specifies the DID operations to
be supported by a DID method specification, including deactivation of a
DID document by replacing it with an updated DID document. It is
also up to the DID method to define how revocation of cryptographic keys
might occur. Additionally, DID method specifications are also expected
to enable support for a quorum of trusted parties to enable key recovery. Some
of the facilities to do so are suggested in Section
§ 5.3.2
Authorization and Delegation
. Not all DID method
specifications will recognize control from DIDs registered using other
DID methods and they might restrict third-party control to DIDs
that use the same method. Access control and key recovery in a DID method
specification can also include a time lock feature to protect against key
compromise by maintaining a second track of control for recovery. Further
specification of this type of control is a matter for future work.
9.8
The Role of Human-Friendly Identifiers
DIDs achieve global uniqueness without the need for a central
registration authority. This comes, however, at the cost of human memorability.
The algorithms capable of generating globally unique identifiers automatically
produce random strings of characters that have no human meaning. This
demonstrates the axiom about identifiers described in
Zooko's Triangle:
"human-meaningful, decentralized, secure — pick any two".
There are of course many use cases where it is desirable to
discover a DID when starting from a human-friendly identifier. For
example, a natural language name, a domain name, or a conventional address for
a DID controller, such as a mobile telephone number, email address,
Twitter handle, or blog URL. However, the problem of mapping human-friendly
identifiers to DIDs (and doing so in a way that can be verified and
trusted) is outside the scope of this specification.
Solutions to this problem (and there are many) should be defined in separate
specifications that reference this specification. It is strongly recommended
that such specifications carefully consider the:
Numerous security attacks based on deceiving users about the true human-friendly
identifier for a target entity.
Privacy consequences of using human-friendly identifiers that are inherently
correlatable, especially if they are globally unique.
Note
A draft specification for discovering a DID from domain names and email
addresses using DNS lookups is available at [DNS-DID].
9.9
Immutability
Many cybersecurity abuses hinge on exploiting gaps between reality and the
assumptions of rational, good-faith actors. Like any ecosystem, the DID
ecosystem has some potential for this to occur. Because this specification is
focused on a data model instead of a protocol, it offers no opinion about many
aspects of how that model is put to use. However, individual DID methods
might want to consider constraints that would eliminate behaviors or semantics
they do not need. The more locked down a DID method is, while
providing the same set of features, the less it can be manipulated by malicious
actors.
As an example, consider the flexibility that the data model offers with respect
to updating. A single edit to a DID document can change anything and
everything except the root id property of the document. And any
individual JSON object in the data model can change all of its properties except
its id. But is it actually desirable for a service endpoint
to change its type after it is defined? Or for a key to change its
value? Or would it be better to require a new id when certain
fundamental properties of an object change? Malicious takeovers of a web site
often aim for an outcome where the site keeps its identifier (the host name),
but gets subtle, dangerous changes underneath. If certain properties of the site
were required by the specification to be immutable (for example, the
ASN
associated with its IP address), such attacks might be much harder and more
expensive to carry out, and anomaly detection would be easier.
The notion that immutability provides some cybersecurity benefits is
particularly relevant because of caching. For DID methods tied to a
global source of truth, a direct, just-in-time lookup of the latest version of a
DID document is always possible. However, it seems likely that layers of
cache might eventually sit between a client and that source of truth. If they
do, believing the attributes of an object in the DID document to have a
given state, when they are actually subtly different, might invite exploits.
This is particularly true if some lookups are of a full DID document, and
others are of partial data, where the larger context is assumed.
9.10
Encrypted Data in DID Documents
DID documents are typically publicly available. Encryption algorithms have been
known to fail due to advances in cryptography and computing power. Implementers
are advised to assume that any encrypted data placed in a DID document
might eventually be made available in clear text to the same audience to which
the encrypted data is available.
Encrypting all or parts of DID documents is not an appropriate means to
protect data in the long term. Similarly, placing encrypted data in DID
documents is not an appropriate means to include personally identifiable
information.
Given the caveats above, if encrypted data is included in a DID document,
implementers are advised to not encrypt with the public keys of entities that do
not wish to be correlated with the DID.
10.
Privacy Considerations
This section is non-normative.
It is critically important to apply the principles of Privacy by Design
to all aspects of the decentralized identifier architecture, because
DIDs and DID documents are, by design, administered directly by
the DID controller(s). There is no registrar, hosting company, or other
intermediate service provider to recommend or apply additional privacy
safeguards. The authors of this specification have applied all seven Privacy by
Design principles throughout its development. For example, privacy in this
specification is preventative not remedial, and privacy is an embedded default.
Furthermore, the decentralized identifier architecture by itself embodies
principle #7, "Respect for user privacy — keep it user-centric."
This section lists additional privacy considerations that implementers,
delegates, and DID subjects should keep in mind.
10.1
Keep Personally-Identifiable Information (PII) Private
If a DID method specification is written for a public verifiable data
registry where all DIDs and DID documents are publicly
available, it is critical that DID documents contain no
personal data. All personal data should be kept behind service
endpoints under the control of the DID subject. Additional due
diligence should be taken around the use of URLs in service endpoints as well
to prevent leakage of unintentional personal data or correlation within a URL
of a service endpoint. For example, a URL that contains a username is likely
dangerous to include in a DID Document because the username is likely
to be human-meaningful in a way that can unintentionally reveal information
that the DID subject did not consent to sharing. With this privacy
architecture, personal data can be exchanged on a private, peer-to-peer basis
using communications channels identified and secured by public key
descriptions in DID documents. This also enables DID
subjects and relying parties to implement the GDPRright to be
forgotten, because no personal data is written to an immutable
distributed ledger.
10.2
DID Correlation Risks and Pseudonymous DIDs
Like any type of globally unique identifier, DIDs might be used for
correlation. DID controllers can mitigate this privacy risk by using
pairwise unique DIDs, that is, sharing a different private DID for
every relationship. In effect, each DID acts as a pseudonym. A
pseudonymous DID need only be shared with more than one party when
the DID subject explicitly authorizes correlation between those parties.
If pseudonymous DIDs are the default, then the only need for a public
DID (a DID published openly or shared with a large number of
parties) is when the DID subject explicitly desires public
identification.
10.3
DID Document Correlation Risks
The anti-correlation protections of pseudonymous DIDs are easily defeated
if the data in the corresponding DID documents can be correlated. For
example, using same public key descriptions or bespoke
service endpoints in multiple DID documents can provide as much
correlation information as using the same DID. Therefore the
DID document for a pseudonymous DID also needs to use pairwise
unique public keys.
It might seem natural to also use pairwise unique service endpoints in
the DID document for a pseudonymous DID. However, unique endpoints
allow all traffic between two DIDs to be isolated perfectly into unique
buckets, where timing correlation and similar analysis is easy. Therefore, a
better strategy for endpoint privacy might be to share an endpoint among
thousands or millions of DIDs controlled by many different subjects.
10.4
Herd Privacy
When a DID subject is indistinguishable from others in the herd, privacy
is available. When the act of engaging privately with another party
is by itself a recognizable flag, privacy is greatly diminished. DIDs
and DID methods need to work to improve herd privacy, particularly for
those who legitimately need it most. Choose technologies and human interfaces
that default to preserving anonymity and pseudonymity. To reduce
digital fingerprints,
share common settings across client implementations, keep negotiated options to
a minimum on wire protocols, use encrypted transport layers, and pad messages to
standard lengths.
A. Current Issues
The list of issues below are under active discussion and are likely to
result in changes to this specification.
Define resolution function with data types, property values, and full metadata structures, without transformation
B.
IANA Considerations
This section will be submitted to the Internet Engineering Steering Group
(IESG) for review, approval, and registration with IANA when this specification
becomes a W3C Proposed Recommendation.
Any application that requires an identifier that is decentralized, persistent,
cryptographically verifiable, and resolvable. Applications typically consist of
cryptographic identity systems, decentralized networks of devices, and
websites that issue or verify W3C Verifiable Credentials.
Additional information:
Magic number(s):
Not Applicable
File extension(s):
.did
Macintosh file type code(s):
TEXT
Person & email address to contact for further information:
Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Intended usage:
Common
Restrictions on usage:
None
Author(s):
Drummond Reed, Manu Sporny, Markus Sabadello, Dave Longley, Christopher Allen
Any application that requires an identifier that is decentralized, persistent,
cryptographically verifiable, and resolvable. Applications typically consist of
cryptographic identity systems, decentralized networks of devices, and
websites that issue or verify W3C Verifiable Credentials.
Additional information:
Magic number(s):
Not Applicable
File extension(s):
.did
Macintosh file type code(s):
TEXT
Person & email address to contact for further information:
Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Intended usage:
Common
Restrictions on usage:
None
Author(s):
Drummond Reed, Manu Sporny, Markus Sabadello, Dave Longley, Christopher Allen
Any application that requires an identifier that is decentralized, persistent,
cryptographically verifiable, and resolvable. Applications typically consist of
cryptographic identity systems, decentralized networks of devices, and
websites that issue or verify W3C Verifiable Credentials.
Additional information:
Magic number(s):
Not Applicable
File extension(s):
.did
Macintosh file type code(s):
TEXT
Person & email address to contact for further information:
Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Intended usage:
Common
Restrictions on usage:
None
Author(s):
Drummond Reed, Manu Sporny, Markus Sabadello, Dave Longley, Christopher Allen, Jonathan Holt
Any application that requires an identifier that is decentralized, persistent,
cryptographically verifiable, and resolvable. Applications typically consist of
cryptographic identity systems, decentralized networks of devices, and
websites that issue or verify W3C Verifiable Credentials.
Additional information:
Magic number(s):
Not Applicable
File extension(s):
.did
Macintosh file type code(s):
TEXT
Person & email address to contact for further information:
Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Intended usage:
Common
Restrictions on usage:
None
Author(s):
Drummond Reed, Manu Sporny, Markus Sabadello, Dave Longley, Christopher Allen, Jonathan Holt
