DID Core Formal Objection FAQ

Answers to Frequently Asked Questions about the DID Core 1.0 Formal Objections raised by Google, Apple, and Mozilla

DID Core Formal Objection FAQ

This is a single place that collects Frequently Asked Questions and links about the recent set of objections that Google, Apple, and Mozilla filed against the W3C Decentralized Identifier specification. This document is maintained by Manu Sporny, one of the Editors of the DID Core 1.0 specification.

  1. What is going on?
  2. Why does the W3C hate decentralization?
  3. What happens if the objections are upheld?
  4. Why the concern over Google, Apple, and Mozilla objecting?
  5. Did the DID Working Group follow its charter?
  6. Did the DID Core specification get wide review?
  7. Was practical interoperability achieved?
  8. Is the DID specification decentralized enough?
  9. Does the DID specification cause great environmental harm?
  10. Does the DID specification encourage ever growing divergence?
  11. How long will this take?
  12. What could be done in the future to avoid this?

What is going on?

The W3C Decentralized Identifier (DID) Working Group had consensus to propose publication of DID Core 1.0 as a W3C Proposed Recommendation (basically, a global Web standard). There were 40 W3C Member companies that agreed to publication of DID Core 1.0 as a W3C Recommendation and there were 3 companies that objected: Google, Apple, and Mozilla. The W3C Team stepped in to mediate a discussion that did not resolve the formal objections.

The acting W3C Director then decided to request feedback from the W3C Council, which is composed of the W3C Advisory Board and the W3C Technical Architecture Group, and take the new W3C Council Formal Objection resolution process for a spin. The Decentralized Identifier Working Group is deeply frustrated by this recent turn of events, but understands that someone needs to be the first through this new process. Ultimately, the decision to overturn the objections or to uphold them will be up to the W3C Director, however, it is expected that this particular run will set precedent for how this is handled at W3C in the future.

There are four aspects of how this came about and how the Formal Objection Council will operate that are deeply concerning:

  1. The objectors (Google, Apple, and Mozilla), and the proponents (over 40 companies) collectively hold 7 out of the 21 seats on the W3C Formal Objection Council. This enables 1/3rd of the W3C Council who are formally objecting to the ratification of DID Core to engage in what is supposed to be an impartial and fair process.

  2. The new W3C Council Formal Objection Process gently suggests that individuals that might have a conflict of interest can voluntarily recuse themselves; the decision is left up to the individual. Apple has raised a formal objection and sits on both the W3C AB and W3C TAG; are both individuals expected to recuse themselves? The hope is that the answer to this question is “Yes, because the formal objection is on behalf of Apple and therefore, there is a conflict of interest.” The same recusal issue applies to Google’s representatives.

  3. The W3C Team, who have a long and positive track record of striking the right balance when providing input into these sorts of decisions, will be all but stripped of any voting authority (having only 1 seat out of 21 on the council) when the W3C Formal Objection Council process is finalized. While the current decision is going to be with the Director, the future situation largely eliminates substantive input from the W3C Team.

  4. Lastly, Google, Apple, and Mozilla made no attempt to bring their formal objections to the Decentralized Identifier Working Group since the Working Group started, and then during the first transition to Candidate Recommendation and then during the second transition to Candidate Recommendation. The first time the group heard of these objections during its two-year charter was in the days before the poll closed to approve DID Core 1.0 as a W3C Recommendation.

That is, in a nutshell, what is going on.

You can read more about what’s going on here:

Does the W3C Still Believe in Tim Berners-Lee’s Vision of Decentralization?

Why does the W3C hate decentralization?

The W3C does not hate decenrtalization. Much of social media reporting on this incident has confused what is and is not an official W3C position.

W3C is a membership organization that consists of over 450 companies. When there is a new technology that has completed standardization in a Working Group, the entire membership is urged to vote on the standard. One company, one vote; a startup consisting of three people has the same voting power as the biggest technology company. In this case, three of those companies objected (0.6%, a little over half of a percent are concerned about the standard) and the W3C Process, which operates on consensus, and requires that we process those objections. This is a case of a very small minority disagreeing about the standard. It is not the position of the majority of the membership.

In fact, there is work to establish a new Vision for the W3C, firmly rooted in principles, where one of those principles is to “Ensure the Web does not favor centralization.” While it doesn’t go as far as saying “The Web must favor decentralization.”, it is certainly not a position against decentralization. There are many individuals and companies at W3C that believe in decentralization and continue to push the Web to be more decentralized than it is today.

What happens if the objections are upheld?

There will be no official Decentralized Identifier standard for the forseeable future. If the objections are upheld, the specification will be sent back to the DID WG for “further work”. The further work will be determined by negotiating with the objectors on what they want to see changed in the specification or the approach.

Did the DID Working Group follow its charter?

In short, yes it did exactly what was agreed to in the W3C DID Working Group Charter.

The success criteria described in the DID WG charter states:

  • The Working Group will seek evidence of independent interoperable uses of the DID syntax and data model from at least two independent implementations of each feature defined in the specification.

  • The group will add a section detailing any known security or privacy implications for implementers, Web authors, and end users.

  • The group will maintain and advance a test suite enabling interoperability testing, which will ensure the deterministic production and consumption of DIDs (URI syntax) and DID Documents (data model).

There are 112 DID Methods that have been registered as “Provisional” in the DID Method Registry. Of these, 47 DID Method implementations have been submitted to the DID Core test suite with the vast majority passing all features each method implemented.

The interoperability goal of DID Core was at the data model and serialization layer (NOT interoperability within the same DID Method); that is, success was to be measured by how many DID Methods used the same identifier syntax and data model to express features required by the Decentralized Identifier Ecosystem. The DID Test Suite tested 137 normative features in the specification. Implementers ran their implementation output against the test suite and the test suite recorded whether or not their DID Method was conformant with each feature the DID Method implemented. The end result was a demonstration that 47 DID Methods conformed with the DID Core specification; that is, they used the same data model and serialization.

Some of the preliminary DID WG Charter proposals included standardizing DID Methods. However, several W3C Members objected to standardizing DID Methods and thus standardizing DID Methods was negotiated to be out of scope when the DID Working Group Chartering discussions happened. The DID WG was specifically prevented from ensuring multiple interoperable implementations within a single DID Method. That said, it happened anyway (outside of the WG) to some degree that is elaborated upon in the question about practical interoperability.

Did the DID Core specification get wide review?

Yes, more than many W3C specifications that have been published as global standards. Here are the communities outside of the DID Working Group that reviewed the DID specification, many of which sent representatives to participate in the work over the years before and during the Working Group’s lifetime:

  • W3C Technical Architecture Working Group (review)
  • W3C Security and Privacy Interest Group (review)
  • W3C Accessibility Working Group (review)
  • W3C Internationalization Working Group (review)
  • W3C Credentials Community Group (CCG) (sent participants who became a core part of the DID WG)
  • Decentralized Identity Foundation (DIF) (sent participants who became a core part of the DID WG)
  • Hyperledger Indy and Aries (sent participants who became a core part of the DID WG)
  • Rebooting the Web of Trust Community (sent participants who became a core part of the DID WG)
  • 42 DID Method implementers provided implementations to the test suite (most from outside of the DID WG)

Was practical interoperability achieved?

Given that the goal of DID Core was to ensure that DID Methods used the same identifier syntax and data model to express the same concepts, and we had 47 implementations submitted for testing that did this, yes, there is practical interoperability across DID Methods.

Going above and beyond what was required by our charter, some DID Method implementers, such as for did:key and did:web, have demonstrated interoperability between multiple independent implementations in forums such as those the US DHS Silicon Valley Innovation Program has required of vendors implementing this technology in government programs. The same is true for Canadian government initiatives as well as European Union initiatives.

The DID WG seems to be willing to add the topic of standardizing some DID Methods under a future charter.

To explain this from a differnt angle, it helps to understand how DIDs are used within Verifiable Credentials, which was ratified as a W3C global standard two years ago.

In order to verify a Verifiable Credential that was digitally signed using a public key associated with a Decentralized Identifier, you have to use a couple of things.

  1. DID Syntax
  2. DID Resolver
  3. DID Document

First, you need to know what a DID looks like – that’s DID Syntax. You then need to feed that DID into something to get a DID Document back – that’s the DID Resolver. Then you need to be able to interpret what you got back in order to find the public key you’re looking for – that’s the DID Document.

To see if you have interoperability at a high level (also known as an integration test), you can take a Verifiable Credential and give it to two different Verifier implementations. If both implementations verify successfully, and use different code bases, you can be fairly certain that practical interoperability exists in the ecosystem. Why is this?

If you look at this from the perspective of a Verifier, the only thing it cares about is that it has a DID, it feeds it to a DID Resolver, and it gets back a DID Document. It doesn’t necessarily care how the DID Resolver gets the DID Document (which is defined by the DID Method), just that the DID Document that it does get is going to be the same as other Verifiers when they run the same process. In other words, how the DID Method works or how resolution happens doesn’t really matter, as long as you can see that multiple code bases get the same DID Document back when Resolving and come to the same conclusion when verifying a Verifiable Credential.

In the first iteration of the DID Working Group, we standardized DID Syntax, the DID Resolver interface, and the DID Document. We didn’t standardize DID Methods because 1) we were asked to aggressively narrow scope by the W3C Advisory Committee, 2) we didn’t feel that the entire community could agree on standardizing any singular DID Method when we chartered the group and the W3C Advisory committee had concerns over “picking a winning DID Method”, 3) we don’t need to do that to demonstrate interoperability for a data model specification, and 4) we can (and did) test for interoperability without standardizing DID Methods (as described above).

You can see this in action today (huge shout out to Charles Lehner and Spruce for putting this tool together) by going to:


Copy-pasting the contents of these pages, which utilize the did:key and did:web Methods respectively, into the tool above:



… and clicking “Verify”. You’ll see that some of the endpoints fail, but at least five of the vendors pass. This is “practical interoperability” for at least did:key and did:web because many of the passing systems don’t use the same DID Resolver implementation, but successfully resolve the did:key:z6Mki…vJ3 and did:web:vc.transmute.world values into the appropriate DID Documents and use the public key contained within to verify the digital signature.

Do we want to do more than just that? Of course we do! We want to fully specify how some of these DID Methods work, generate thorough test suites for them, and take those specifications through the W3C standardization process. Do we need to do that to demonstrate practical interoperability? Nope, because we have already achieved demonstrating practical interoperability through end-to-end integration testing.

Is the DID specification decentralized enough?

Yes, there are 112 DID Methods where the majority of them are based on more “decentralized” technologies, such as distributed ledgers (did:ion, did:sov, did:v1) or storage-less distributed systems (did:key), than others that are based on centralized systems (did:ccp, did:kr).

The fact that we cannot stop individuals from choosing the systems on which their DID Methods are based should be an indicator that we have achieved to make things decentralized. That said, it became evident early on that not everyone agrees on every type of “decentralization” (governance, computational, political, regional, etc.) that is important for a DID Method. For this reason, the DID WG has spent a considerable amount of time creating a DID Rubric that enables organizations to evaluate whether or not a DID Method meets the decentralization criteria that’s important to them. The Rubric currently contains 36 criteria to be considered, a number of them on different axes of “decentralized”.

What the group has discovered over the past several years of pre-standards and standards work is that “decentralization” is not a binary condition, but a multi-dimensional one where different parties weigh each dimension differently and there is no single correct answer wrt. Centralized vs. Decentralized. The DID WG did, as much as it could practically do, without imposing draconian rules that at best, wouldn’t be followed, or at worst, could be viewed as censoring the ability of an individual or organization from choosing a solution based on their needs.

The DID WG believes that it has achieved the decentralization goals that it intended to achieve and has documented the areas of debate such that others can benefit from the many dimensions of the decentralization vs. centralization debate.

Does the DID specification cause great environmental harm?

The DID specification is a data model specification and thus does not recommend any specific backing technology or network for a decentralized identifier. There is a good article on this particular point here:


Some distributed ledgers consume greater computational resources than others. Whether that consumption is warranted or wasteful is an ongoing conversation far beyond the scope of the DID WG. Within the WG, resource usage has been a regular topic of debate, and like the “centralized vs. decentralized” discussion, the answer largely depends on the requirements of the individual or organization using the DID Method. There is implementation guidance that is currently being written that urges implementers to carefully consider the potential environmental impacts of their DID Methods, as well as additional criteria for the DID Rubric to help people decide which DID Methods best meet their needs.

The DID WG is actively addressing this concern in the DID Implementation Guide and the DID Rubric, intends to continue this discussion in future WGs, and welcomes others to contribute to the authoring of this sort of material.

Does the DID specification encourage ever growing divergence?

One property of decentralized systems is not being able to control the number of individuals and organizations that implement the system. The DID Spec Registries provide one mechanism for DID Methods to register, but there is no requirement for them to use it. The nature of a decentralized system is not compatible with a required central authority determining who may do what.

To put the number of DID Methods in perspective, however, we point out that there are currently 346 URI Schemes registered in the IANA URI Scheme Registry, yet many don’t seem to be concerned with an ever growing number of URI Schemes. One of the reasons for this is an inverse power law that comes into play in most markets, where a market over time, will tend to consolidate on a handful of implementation choices. Many modern systems have largely settled on https and webrtc and left gopher and ftp behind; but the consolidation took many years to play out. In the same way, we expect this to happen with DID Methods.

This is already happening to a degree, with many implementers supporting things like did:key and did:web over some of the more esoteric DID Methods. The start of successful technology cycles often start with an explosion of options followed by market consolidation due to the difficulty of supporting every option. This is something that any W3C WG has very little control over when introducing new technologies.

The DID WG would most likely be open to strategies that would provide healthy nudges to the market to consolidate sooner rather than later, understanding that we have few tools to enforce that in a decentralized ecosystem.

Why the concern over Google, Apple, and Mozilla objecting?

The concern is that Google, Apple, and Mozilla are objecting and then get to be on the W3C Council that determines whether or not the objection is valid. That is, these three companies have a non-trivial influence on overriding what 40 companies have found consensus to standardize at W3C. There are concerns around some of the biggest tech companies on the planet being able to stop global standards that would open their businesses up to more competition.

Google and Apple are two of the largest identity providers on the planet. Google Accounts, Apple ID, Sign in with Google, and Sign in with Apple are a few of the products and services that could be viewed as competing with the W3C Decentralized Identifiers specification.

Speaking more broadly, Google Wallet, Apple Wallet, and initiatives such as Apple’s integration of Mobile Driver’s Licenses into an ecosystem that does not allow open competition is also problematic:


There is a belief that some of these systems are not in the best interest of the general public. Here is a statement from the Technical Director of the DHS Silicon Valley Innovation Program commenting on why the approach taken with some of these closed Digital Wallet ecosystems is problematic:


The W3C Decentralized Identifier WG, W3C Verifiable Credentials WG, and the Credentials Community Group are working on open wallet ecosystems. Yet another class of products and services that could be viewed as competitive.

There is concern over the individuals that work for these corporations being biased in some way by the competing technologies and services that their companies are producing. While these individuals are believed to be unbiased by some and are not expected to just tow tow the company line… it’s not appropriate for them to be a part of the decision making process for their company’s formal objections because it raises doubt over the fairness of the W3C Council Formal Objection process. That’s the more damaging thing to W3C as a community; accidentally fomenting distrust in the process. We’re already starting to see the first well-written opinion pieces hit the media outlets on this concern:



It was quite difficult to get many of these “decentralized technology” companies to W3C and convince them that the browser vendors didn’t run the show at W3C. It took years of concerted effort, and it’s exactly this sort of situation that reassures their fears. Members of the DID Working Group have received a substantive number of texts and emails since Apple, Google, and Mozilla’s formal objections, primarily due to the way they were raised and how they’re being processed.

How long will this take?

There is no time limit set on when objections are upheld or rejected. It is typically done within a month or two of the formal objections being raised, but can drag on for months after that.

What could be done in the future to avoid this?

Probably not much; formal objections at the last minute can and do happen. It’s been this way for decades and is unlikely to change. This particular occurence is especially disruptive because of an experiment that is being run to determine if the new formal objection process is acceptable to the membership. There are courses of action that the W3C Membership can take to resolve these concerns (but again, all of these are currently being debated):

  1. Make communicating with the W3C Council regarding the formal objection strictly off-limits outside of the formal objection process (public communication is allowed, but “backroom” communication is disallowed). Violating this hard line should result in removal from the W3C TAG or W3C AB because it is an egregious violation of trust in our elected representatives.

  2. Make recusal from the W3C Council decision mandatory for any individual that is associated on either side of the formal objection.

  3. Ensure that the W3C Staff are a substantive part of the formal objection process, and not relegated to the sidelines as they seem to be in the new W3C Council-based process. They are a check and balance that we should be depending on as a community.

  4. Strike down formal objections that made no attempt to engage with the Working Group. Allowing formal objections in the 11th hour accomplishes nothing other than stress, distrust, and drama – three things we don’t need more of at W3C. The W3C Process should be predictable, trustworthy, and boring.