Register did:educreds method - #749
Conversation
🤖 AI Preliminary Specification ReviewThis is an advisory, automated review of the DID Method specification(s) referenced in this pull request, checked against the registration checklist. It does not replace review by the registry editors.
|
| Item | Level | Status | Notes | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ✅ | M1. Specification is reachable and is a DID Method specification | MUST | pass | |
| ✅ | M2. DID Method Syntax is defined | MUST | pass | |
| ✅ | M3. CRUD operations are defined | MUST | pass | |
| ✅ | M4. Security Considerations present and substantive | MUST | pass | |
| ✅ | M5. Privacy Considerations present and substantive | MUST | pass | |
| ✅ | M6. Method name is indicative and non-generic | MUST | pass | |
| ✅ | M7. No unreasonable legal, security, moral, or privacy harms | MUST | pass | |
| ✅ | M8. Human-readable description of the addition | MUST | pass | |
| ✅ | S1. contactEmail present | OPTIONAL | pass | |
| ✅ | S2. verifiableDataRegistry present | OPTIONAL | pass | |
| S3. Intellectual-property posture is clear | SHOULD | warn | The specification footer and metadata state '© 2026 EduCreds Labs Ltd. All Rights Reserved.', which may raise concerns for a registry contribution expecting an open licensing posture; no explicit open IP/patent statement is provided. |
swcurran
left a comment
swcurran
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reviewed the registration JSON spec and AFAICS it meets the necessary bar for registration. Holding back because I'm not sure of the requirements around the IP question raised in the AI review -- does the (S3) Intellectual-property posture need to be clear before approval? @msporny ?
I note the the spec covers only the creation of the institution form of the DID. What are the CRUD operations for the other two types of did:educreds? The credential form seems odd (a DID for a credential?), but not disallowed.
A question about who is the holder of the private key for an Institutional DID. In most places from what I can see the EduCreds platform holds the private key for the institution. But in one place (the update) it appears to imply that the Institution was conveying the rotated public key. Which is right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Meets minimum requirements for registration.
The intellectual-property posture is clear, which is all we need -- that is, they're claiming all of it as their IP and they're not trying to claim some brand name like "Nike" or "Coca Cola" as the DID Method name. That's all we're looking for.
3 participants
Register
did:educredsDID MethodSummary
This PR registers the
did:educredsDID method with the W3C DID Extensions registry.Method Details
educredsAbout the Method
did:educredsis a DID method designed for academic credential infrastructure in Africa and emerging markets. It supports three subject types:did:educreds:institution:<uuid>) — accredited universities and collegesdid:educreds:student:<eth-address>) — credential holdersdid:educreds:credential:<uuid>) — individual verifiable credentialsSpecification Conformance
The specification at https://did.educreds.xyz covers all required sections per the W3C DID Core v1.1 specification:
Implementation
The method is implemented and operational. A live resolver is available at:
GET https://api-dev.educreds.xyz/api/v1/did/resolve/:didCredentials issued under this method are stored on IPFS and anchored on an EVM-compatible chain for tamper-proof verification.