Add idc method

[ibmdc]

DID Method Registration

As a DID method registrant, I have ensured that my DID method registration complies with the following statements:

• The DID Method specification defines the DID Method Syntax.
• The DID Method specification defines the Create, Read, Update, and Deactivate DID Method Operations.
• The DID Method specification contains a Security Considerations section.
• The DID Method specification contains a Privacy Considerations section.
• The JSON file I am submitting has passed all automated validation tests below.
• The JSON file contains a contactEmail address [OPTIONAL].
• The JSON file contains a verifiableDataRegistry entry [OPTIONAL].

[OR13]

@peacekeeper @talltree

please review this PR, specifically: https://wiki.digitalcredentials.ibm.com/#/spec/v1/did-method?id=_5-privacy-considerations

Given your concerns over recent registry entries, I won't approve until you have reviewed.

@idcibm from my perspective, this looks to meet the registration criteria, but there has been concern on other did methods privacy section recently so I am checking with folks who raised objections on similar PRs.

At this time, there are no changes I am requesting from you.

I am requesting the individuals linked here approve or request changes before I will approve the PR.

[mwherman2000]

I do realize that this is IBM submitting this registry application but it must be noted that IDC is an existing, highly recognized trademark in the computer industry: https://www.idc.com/

IDC does not allow its name or logo to be used in the promotion of products and services.

Founded in 1964, IDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of International Data Group (IDG, Inc.), the world's leading tech media, data and marketing services company.

Should the W3C be in the position of accepting DID Method name registry applications for well known trademarks from other than the rights holder?

Perhaps did:ibmidc is a better choice?

[peacekeeper]

@peacekeeper @talltree please review this PR

There seem to be some small bugs in the DID document section, e.g. the @context should include https://w3id.org/security/suites/ed25519-2020/v1, and created, updated, versionId should go into DID document metadata rather than the DID document itself.

specifically: https://wiki.digitalcredentials.ibm.com/#/spec/v1/did-method?id=_5-privacy-considerations

I think it would be good to explain a bit better what is meant by "verifying the Fabric identity" and "MSP identifier of the caller", and if any personal data is associated with that. Probably some notes could also be added on who controls nodes in the permissioned, distributed ledger.

Overall, I think this is far less problematic from a privacy perspective than a certain other recently discussed DID method.

[OR13]

@peacekeeper @talltree would you be willing to approve the PR or request changes?

[ibmdc]

Thank you all for your time and feedback - very helpful!

1. We will address the bugs raised by @peacekeeper in the DID document example.
2. For the privacy section, we can provide additional details on the authentication mechanisms used in Hyperledger Fabric.
3. Regarding the use of "idc" raised by @mwherman2000, we will need to re-visit this discussion internally, and it's possible that we will use a different DID method. With that being the case, we will close this PR and re-open (possibly with a different DID method) when a decision has been made.