I've had a busy month. Something had to drop and it was regular updates here. Hopefully I’m back to a more regular schedule now. Technological change is messy and hard to predict. Still we can look at the direction in which digital identity is evolving to get an idea what's coming—even if we can't predict the timing.
Great write up, Phil! I think you highlighted the problem well and circled the solution well. It did bring up an interesting question for me too. You pointed out that the SL metasystem originally was designed around Kim’s identity laws but fell short in certain aspects. I’m curious if you’ve put any thought into how the new SSI metasystem may fall short and if any of these are areas we should try to keep in scope or at least leave extensions open for. Would this make sense or is it the case where we can’t see the problems until we’ve got the SSI metasystem and so we’ll be forced to create a new metasystem in a decade or two again?
You'll have to buy my book and find out! Just kidding...
I think the SSI Metasystem has solved some of the shortcomings of the SL Metasystem and done it structurally in a way that brings it more in line with the Laws of Identity. Specifically, support for directed identifiers (peer DIDs, KERI, etc.) allow for direct relationships with out intermediating authorities (also known as IdPs).
But I'm sure it's not perfect. It's the best we've got right now. The question is are its shortcomings sufficient to limit its widespread adoption? Or, put another way, can it find broader adoption that the SL Metasystem has? Time will tell.
Thanks for your take, I largely agree that the SSI metasystem will improve beyond the uptake that the SL metasystem delivered and I think your point about directed identifiers is one reason. Another seems like it’s because it allows for better abstraction around the trust anchors with the issuer model of VCs. I’ve got my theories around how this pushes us towards a focus on higher levels of assurance use cases more, but as you point out only time will tell whether these will actually become a problem. In theory we can still support the most basic self attested credentials which I know you’ve advocated about for many years now. I’ll give your book a read to see what insights or inspiration you might provide on these issues. Thanks for the thoughtful response in any case and I hope you’re doing well!
I agree that directed identifiers are just one reason. Kim noted that one of the features of an identity metasystem confirming to the laws is polymorphism, which is, I think what you’re describing. The system that is the most flexible is the most useful in a variety of use cases.
Great write up, Phil! I think you highlighted the problem well and circled the solution well. It did bring up an interesting question for me too. You pointed out that the SL metasystem originally was designed around Kim’s identity laws but fell short in certain aspects. I’m curious if you’ve put any thought into how the new SSI metasystem may fall short and if any of these are areas we should try to keep in scope or at least leave extensions open for. Would this make sense or is it the case where we can’t see the problems until we’ve got the SSI metasystem and so we’ll be forced to create a new metasystem in a decade or two again?
You'll have to buy my book and find out! Just kidding...
I think the SSI Metasystem has solved some of the shortcomings of the SL Metasystem and done it structurally in a way that brings it more in line with the Laws of Identity. Specifically, support for directed identifiers (peer DIDs, KERI, etc.) allow for direct relationships with out intermediating authorities (also known as IdPs).
But I'm sure it's not perfect. It's the best we've got right now. The question is are its shortcomings sufficient to limit its widespread adoption? Or, put another way, can it find broader adoption that the SL Metasystem has? Time will tell.
Thanks for your take, I largely agree that the SSI metasystem will improve beyond the uptake that the SL metasystem delivered and I think your point about directed identifiers is one reason. Another seems like it’s because it allows for better abstraction around the trust anchors with the issuer model of VCs. I’ve got my theories around how this pushes us towards a focus on higher levels of assurance use cases more, but as you point out only time will tell whether these will actually become a problem. In theory we can still support the most basic self attested credentials which I know you’ve advocated about for many years now. I’ll give your book a read to see what insights or inspiration you might provide on these issues. Thanks for the thoughtful response in any case and I hope you’re doing well!
I agree that directed identifiers are just one reason. Kim noted that one of the features of an identity metasystem confirming to the laws is polymorphism, which is, I think what you’re describing. The system that is the most flexible is the most useful in a variety of use cases.