Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Create adr-043-interchain-identifiers.md #9589
Create adr-043-interchain-identifiers.md #9589
Changes from 11 commits
7d98d7a
63a57a0
d438398
65e5886
874817c
1859f7d
ebfbf9d
b0c5ce9
37781df
a4db606
faaa576
6f77c8d
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
let's make the explanation a bit easier, eg: In other words, Cosmos IID is DID with an on chain record.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If we have only one method name (cosmos), then who will be in charge of creating and assigning chain name?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
My expectation is that this would be an on-chain registry on the Hub with some sort of governance mechanism for managing name claims.
As for who would build or control that, I'm not sure who the best party would be, but I understand there are a few options available.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Good, let's add it in the doc.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We should discuss the use of 'cosmos' for this IID methods. I think there is an important opportunity to maintain the IID convention, where the DID only ever identifies on-chain assets and do so in a way that any Cosmos blockchain can easily adopt. This convention ensures some modest privacy benefits but is, by necessity, a different way to do things that "normal" DIDs. It is just a convention, but if we start promoting using IIDs to represent people, then we can't tell, for example, if a given VC with the subject as a cosmos DID/IID is about the person the DID is used to refer to, or to an on-chain asset that record data for the DID.
At the same time, there is also high demand for more traditional DIDs on Cosmos (as odd as that sounds for a tech that hasn't even been published as a formal standard). DIDs that are used to represent people or companies, are not IIDs, by definition. It may well be far more appropriate to use did:cosmos for generic identifiers and find another monicker for cosmos-based IIDs.
Once we have the software for one (either a Cosmos DID Method or a Cosmos IID Method), the software should be readily usable for the other. The main advantage of supporting a Cosmos DID Method (on which is not an IID) is that existing and emerging DID expectations are that DIDs for people use the primary authentication for the DID as a means of authenticating people. IIDs provide a way to authenticate as either the NFT or as an subset identifier defined within the IID's namespace. Those subset IDs can refer to people in IIDs and IIDs allow that in a way that removes the HTTPRange14 problem, but most authentication approaches I know do not actively support the notion of authenticating as a subidentifier.
ALTHOUGH, I just thought of a way that we might be able to get support for authenticating subidentifiers without too much of a lift. At least there might be a way to have the only real difference between IIDs and DIDs be how they are used (convention) rather than DID-level functionality like authentication and authorizations.
So, if the DIDs for people use case is important, and I think it is, we should probably use did:cosmos for that use and explore another monicker for cosmos IIDs.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@ig-shaun @AdityaSripal @Sam-Interchain
Can we find the right party to make a decision on this? I agree that if we can't have a name service, we can't have a universal did:cosmos that works for all cosmos chains.
However, it seems there would be significant value for a did:cosmos that allowed any Cosmos chain to stand up a DID issuing capability without formally developing their own DID method.
If that value doesn't make sense for Cosmos, then I'd recommend establishing a common interface without solving for a universal did:cosmos, so that application chains could at least develop interoperable DID methods, such as did:ixo and did:regen.