Repeatable standardisation process for decentralised/ledger-based DID methods

[ankurdotb]

Context

The DIF DID Methods Working Group meeting on 12 March 2025 (see auto-generated summary) expressed its support for a draft W3C DID Methods Working Group charter to take a list of selected DID methods forward for the purposes of standardisation at W3C.

The W3C DID method working group will be (primarily) focussed on web-based or web-derived DID methods, which makes sense given its focus is on web technologies.

This issue proposes that this working group should define a repeatable process for standardising decentralised, distributed, or ledger-based DID methods.

Proposal

A repeatable process for standardising decentralised, distributed, or ledger-based DID methods, defined by this DID Method Working Group, could provide an alternative/parallel standardisation track to the W3C DID Methods Working Group. Key elements of such a process could be:

1. Outreach to DID Method authors: We should proactively reach out to authors of existing decentralised/ledger-based DID methods who may not be currently engaged with the DIF DID Methods Working Group. Many might be unaware of this WG and, hence, are not currently engaged in filing proposals. (Note: by "decentralised", I'm also referring to non-ledger-based methods such as did:dht.)
2. Peer review and hardening (optional? discuss?): While most DID methods in use have published Architecture Decision Record or specifications published in their respective projects, the DIF DID Methods Working Group could play a crucial role in peer-reviewing and "hardening" the specifications of submitted DID methods. This would involve a thorough examination of the method's technical aspects, security considerations, and alignment with best practices as a quality filter before they are taken forward for standardisation. Whether this step would be valuable or not was debated in the WG meeting. One suggestion made here was that DID methods could submit evidence / a self-assessment against a list of quality criteria (similar to the current proposal template), which already includes assessment aspects such as DID Traits and DID Rubric.
3. Establish a concrete step of next steps that DID methods/their authors can take: This WG could publish guidance on what steps need to be taken once a DID method specification is considered "ready" for standardisation at a recognised international and/or European standards body. Early options discussed during the WG meeting were:
   1. CEN/CENELEC/JTC 19: JTC 19 on Blockchain and Distributed Ledger Technologies could be one avenue for assessment and standardisation. While some DIF contributors already participate in this JTC, a repeatable and manageable process would make this easier to be consistently applied and used.
   2. Guidance towards other regional and/or international standardisation bodies: Guidance could be published on how a DID method that has achieved standardisation with a European standards body, such as CEN, could then be presented to other regional or international standards bodies, such as ISO, as evidence or a basis for further standardisation efforts.
   3. ISO: Guidance could be published on how DID methods may formally be standardised by an international standards organisation such as ISO, either through the full process or Publicly Available Specification (PAS) process.
   4. IETF: There may be relevant working groups or processes available via IETF for standardisation of DID Methods

Outcome

While this WG cannot directly standardise DID methods at other standards organisations, it could develop and provide guidance to DID method authors on what processes could be followed. It could also coordinate/collaborate with standards organisations recommended in the process to ensure that if the guidance is followed, the resulting workload can be manageable.

[ottomorac]

Hello @ankurdotb from the Privado ID side we will join this effort. It makes sense to start a working group to standardize blockchain based DID methods at DIF.

[ankurdotb]

Worth noting something that might be obvious: any such output from this group could also be useful for DID methods other than ledger-based DID methods. My purpose in specifically mentioning ledgers is to ensure any such guidance defines processes doesn't result in options that are deemed not the the best fit for ledger-based methods.