Patent Description:
Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs) are a new type of identifier, which are independent from any centralized registry, identity provider, or certificate authority. Distributed ledger technology (such as blockchain) provides the opportunity for using fully decentralized identifiers. Distributed ledger technology uses globally distributed ledgers to record transactions between two or more parties in a verifiable way. Once a transaction is recorded, the data in the section of ledger cannot be altered retroactively without the alteration of all subsequent sections of ledger, which provides a fairly secure platform. Since a DID is generally not controlled by a centralized management system but rather is owned by an owner of the DID, DIDs are sometimes referred to as identities without authority.

Rather, this background is only provided to illustrate one exemplary technology area where some embodiments describe herein may be practiced.

<CIT> discloses a computer-implemented method for performing attestation verification for a first entity, the method comprising acts of: receiving, via a distributed ledger system, a request to verify at least one attestation corresponding to at least one attribute of a second entity, wherein: the at least one attestation comprises a cryptographic proof, the first entity is indicated as being responsible for verifying the at least one attestation, and the at least one attestation is movable between at least two states in the distributed ledger system, the at least two states comprising a VERIFIED state. The method further comprising receiving, via a channel outside the distributed ledger system, at least one value for the at least one attribute of the second entity, wherein: the at least one value comprises an identifier of a third entity, and storing the identifier of the third entity in the at least one attribute of the second entity indicates that the second entity bears a selected relationship with the third entity. The method further comprising determining whether the cryptographic proof in the at least one attestation is a valid proof of the received at least one value for the at least one attribute; determining whether the second entity bears the selected relationship with the third entity; and in response to determining that the cryptographic proof is a valid proof of the received at least one value and the second entity bears the selected relationship with the third entity: electronically signing the at least one attestation; and causing, via the distributed ledger system, the at least one attestation to be in the VERIFIED state.

It is the object of the present invention to provide an improved method and system for presenting attestations for a Distributed ID attestation or claim.

Embodiments disclosed herein are related to computing systems and methods for providing a presentation interrupt for a DID attestation. A DID attestation is accessed that is issued by a first entity of a decentralized network. The DID attestation defines information that has been generated by the first entity about a DID owner who is the subject of the DID attestation. The DID attestation includes interrupt metadata that directs that the first entity be contacted prior to the DID owner being able to present the DID attestation to a second entity of the decentralized network. In response to the DID owner attempting to present the DID attestation to the second entity, the first entity is contacted as directed by the interrupt metadata. Authorization information is received from the first entity. The authorization information indicates if the DID owner is able to present the DID attestation to the second entity.

The embodiments disclosed herein represent a technical advance over existing systems. For example, an entity may issue a DID attestation that includes information about the DID owner. The DID owner may subsequently want to present the DID attestation to a second entity so that the second entity may utilize the information included in the DID attestation. However, the entity that issued the DID attestation may want to have some control over which entities the DID attestation is presented to and also how and where the DID attestation is presented. For instance the entity that issued the DID attestation may want to verify that the DID owner who is attempting to present the DID attestation is actually the party who it was issued to. The entity that issued the DID attestation may also want to ensure that the DID attestation is used in a permitted geographical location or that the DID attestation is up to date.

Existing systems do not allow the entity that issued the DID attestation to have control over how the DID attestation is presented by the DID owner. The embodiments disclosed herein provide a way for the entity that issued the DID attestation to maintain at least some control over how it is presented by requiring that the DID owner contact the issuing entity for authorization before being allowed to present the DID attestation to the second entity. The issuing entity is then able to provide or deny authorization to the DID owner to present the DID attestation to the second entity as circumstances warrant. This provides enhanced security against impermissible use of the DID attestation. It also provides increased confidence by the second entity when being presented the DID attestation that the DID attestation is valid and authorized by the entity that issued the DID attestation. This reduces the amount of interaction between the parties, which results in reduced processing use and time. In addition, user convenience and productivity is increased.

Because the principles described herein may be performed in the context of a computing system, some introductory discussion of a computing system will be described with respect to <FIG>. Then, this description will return to the principles of a decentralized identifier (DID) platform with respect to the remaining figures.

As illustrated in <FIG>, in its most basic configuration, a computing system <NUM> typically includes at least one hardware processing unit <NUM> and memory <NUM>. The processing unit <NUM> may include a general-purpose processor and may also include a field programmable gate array (FPGA), an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), or any other specialized circuit. The memory <NUM> may be physical system memory, which may be volatile, non-volatile, or some combination of the two. The term "memory" may also be used herein to refer to non-volatile mass storage such as physical storage media. If the computing system is distributed, the processing, memory and/or storage capability may be distributed as well.

The computing system <NUM> also has thereon multiple structures often referred to as an "executable component". For instance, the memory <NUM> of the computing system <NUM> is illustrated as including executable component <NUM>. The term "executable component" is the name for a structure that is well understood to one of ordinary skill in the art in the field of computing as being a structure that can be software, hardware, or a combination thereof. For instance, when implemented in software, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the structure of an executable component may include software objects, routines, methods, and so forth, that may be executed on the computing system, whether such an executable component exists in the heap of a computing system, or whether the executable component exists on computer-readable storage media.

In such a case, one of ordinary skill in the art will recognize that the structure of the executable component exists on a computer-readable medium such that, when interpreted by one or more processors of a computing system (e.g., by a processor thread), the computing system is caused to perform a function. Such structure may be computer readable directly by the processors (as is the case if the executable component were binary). Alternatively, the structure may be structured to be interpretable and/or compiled (whether in a single stage or in multiple stages) so as to generate such binary that is directly interpretable by the processors. Such an understanding of example structures of an executable component is well within the understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art of computing when using the term "executable component".

While not all computing systems require a user interface, in some embodiments, the computing system <NUM> includes a user interface system <NUM> for use in interfacing with a user. The user interface system <NUM> may include output mechanisms 112A as well as input mechanisms 112B. The principles described herein are not limited to the precise output mechanisms 112A or input mechanisms 112B as such will depend on the nature of the device. However, output mechanisms 112A might include, for instance, speakers, displays, tactile output, virtual or augmented reality, holograms and so forth. Examples of input mechanisms 112B might include, for instance, microphones, touchscreens, virtual or augmented reality, holograms, cameras, keyboards, mouse or other pointer input, sensors of any type, and so forth.

The remaining figures may discuss various computing system which may correspond to the computing system <NUM> previously described. The computing systems of the remaining figures include various components or functional blocks that may implement the various embodiments disclosed herein as will be explained. The various components or functional blocks may be implemented on a local computing system or may be implemented on a distributed computing system that includes elements resident in the cloud or that implement aspects of cloud computing. The various components or functional blocks may be implemented as software, hardware, or a combination of software and hardware. The computing systems of the remaining figures may include more or less than the components illustrated in the figures and some of the components may be combined as circumstances warrant.

Some introductory discussion of a decentralized identifier (DID) and the environment in which they are created and reside will now be given with respect to <FIG>, which illustrates portions of a decentralized network <NUM>. As illustrated in <FIG>, a DID owner <NUM> may own or control a DID <NUM> that represents an identity of the DID owner <NUM>. The DID owner <NUM> may register a DID using a creation and registration service, which will be explained in more detail below.

The DID owner <NUM> may be any entity that could benefit from a DID. For example, the DID owner <NUM> may be a human being or an organization of human beings. Such organizations might include a company, department, government, agency, or any other organization or group of organizations. Each individual human being might have a DID while the organization(s) to which each belongs might likewise have a DID.

The DID owner <NUM> may alternatively be a machine, system, or device, or a collection of machine(s), device(s) and/or system(s). In still other embodiments, the DID owner <NUM> may be a subpart of a machine, system or device. For instance, a device could be a printed circuit board, where the subpart of that circuit board are individual components of the circuit board. In such embodiments, the machine or device may have a DID and each subpart may also have a DID. A DID owner might also be a software component such as the executable component <NUM> described above with respect to <FIG>. An example of a complex executable component <NUM> might be an artificial intelligence. Accordingly, an artificial intelligence may also own a DID.

Thus, the DID owner <NUM> may be any entity, human or non-human, that is capable of creating the DID <NUM> or at least having the DID <NUM> created for and/or associated with them. Although the DID owner <NUM> is shown as having a single DID <NUM>, this need not be the case as there may be any number of DIDs associated with the DID owner <NUM> as circumstances warrant.

As mentioned, the DID owner <NUM> may create and register the DID <NUM>. The DID <NUM> may be any identifier that may be associated with the DID owner <NUM>. Preferably, that identifier is unique to that DID owner <NUM>, at least within a scope in which the DID is anticipated to be in use. As an example, the identifier may be a locally unique identifier, and perhaps more desirably a globally unique identifier for identity systems anticipated to operate globally. In some embodiments, the DID <NUM> may be a Uniform Resource identifier (URI) (such as a Uniform Resource Locator (URL)) or other pointer that relates the DID owner <NUM> to mechanisms to engage in trustable interactions with the DID owner <NUM>.

The DID <NUM> is "decentralized" because it does not require a centralized, third party management system for generation, management, or use. Accordingly, the DID <NUM> remains under the control of the DID owner <NUM>. This is different from conventional centralized IDs which base trust on centralized authorities and that remain under control of corporate directory services, certificate authorities, domain name registries, or other centralized authority (referred to collectively as "centralized authorities" herein). Accordingly, the DID <NUM> may be any identifier that is under the control of the DID owner <NUM> and that is independent of any centralized authority.

In some embodiments, the structure of the DID <NUM> may be as simple as a user name or some other human-understandable term. However, in other embodiments, for increased security, the DID <NUM> may preferably be a random string of numbers and letters. In one embodiment, the DID <NUM> may be a string of <NUM> numbers and letters. Accordingly, the embodiments disclosed herein are not dependent on any specific implementation of the DID <NUM>. In a very simple example, the DID <NUM> is shown within the figures as "123ABC".

As also shown in <FIG>, the DID owner <NUM> has control of a private key <NUM> and public key <NUM> pair that is associated with the DID <NUM>. Because the DID <NUM> is independent of any centralized authority, the private key <NUM> should at all times be fully in control of the DID owner <NUM>. That is, the private and public keys should be generated in a decentralized manner that ensures that they remain under the control of the DID owner <NUM>.

As will be described in more detail to follow, the private key <NUM> and public key <NUM> pair may be generated on a device controlled by the DID owner <NUM>. The private key <NUM> and public key <NUM> pair should not be generated on a server controlled by any centralized authority as this may cause the private key <NUM> and public key <NUM> pair to not be fully under the control of the DID owner <NUM> at all times. Although <FIG> and this description have described a private and public key pair, it will also be noted that other types of reasonable cryptographic information and/or mechanisms may also be used as circumstances warrant.

<FIG> also illustrates a DID document <NUM> that is associated with the DID <NUM>. As will be explained in more detail to follow, the DID document <NUM> may be generated at the time that the DID <NUM> is created. In its simplest form, the DID document <NUM> describes how to use the DID <NUM>. Accordingly, the DID document <NUM> includes a reference to the DID <NUM>, which is the DID that is described by the DID document <NUM>. In some embodiments, the DID document <NUM> may be implemented according to methods specified by a distributed ledger <NUM> (such as blockchain) that will be used to store a representation of the DID <NUM> as will be explained in more detail to follow. Thus, the DID document <NUM> may have different methods depending on the specific distributed ledger.

The DID document <NUM> also includes the public key <NUM> created by the DID owner <NUM> or some other equivalent cryptographic information. The public key <NUM> may be used by third party entities that are given permission by the DID owner <NUM> to access information and data owned by the DID owner <NUM>. The public key <NUM> may also be used to verify that the DID owner <NUM> in fact owns or controls the DID <NUM>.

The DID document <NUM> may also include authentication information <NUM>. The authentication information <NUM> may specify one or more mechanisms by which the DID owner <NUM> is able to prove that the DID owner <NUM> owns the DID <NUM>. In other words, the mechanisms of the authentication information <NUM> may show proof of a binding between the DID <NUM> (and thus its DID owner <NUM>) and the DID document <NUM>. In one embodiment, the authentication information <NUM> may specify that the public key <NUM> be used in a signature operation to prove the ownership of the DID <NUM>. Alternatively, or in addition, the authentication information <NUM> may specify that the public key <NUM> be used in a biometric operation to prove ownership of the DID <NUM>. Accordingly, the authentication information <NUM> may include any number of mechanisms by which the DID owner <NUM> is able to prove that the DID owner <NUM> owns the DID <NUM>.

The DID document <NUM> may also include authorization information <NUM>. The authorization information <NUM> may allow the DID owner <NUM> to authorize third party entities the rights to modify the DID document <NUM> or some part of the document without giving the third party the right to prove ownership of the DID <NUM>. For example, the authorization information <NUM> may allow the third party to update any designated set of one or more fields in the DID document <NUM> using any designated update mechanism. Alternatively, the authorization information may allow the third party to limit the usages of DID <NUM> by the DID owner <NUM> for a specified time period. This may be useful when the DID owner <NUM> is a minor child and the third party is a parent or guardian of the child. The authorization information <NUM> may allow the parent or guardian to limit use of the DID owner <NUM> until such time as the child is no longer a minor.

The authorization information <NUM> may also specify one or more mechanisms that the third party will need to follow to prove they are authorized to modify the DID document <NUM>. In some embodiments, these mechanisms may be similar to those discussed previously with respect to the authentication information <NUM>.

The DID document <NUM> may also include one or more service endpoints <NUM>. A service endpoint may include a network address at which a service operates on behalf of the DID owner <NUM>. Examples of specific services include discovery services, social networks, file storage services such as identity servers or hubs, and verifiable claim repository services. Accordingly, the service endpoints <NUM> operate as pointers for the services that operate on behalf of the DID owner <NUM>. These pointers may be used by the DID owner <NUM> or by third party entities to access the services that operate on behalf of the DID owner <NUM>. Specific examples of service endpoints <NUM> will be explained in more detail to follow.

The DID document <NUM> may further include identification information <NUM>. The identification information <NUM> may include personally identifiable information such as the name, address, occupation, family members, age, hobbies, interests, or the like of DID owner <NUM>. Accordingly, the identification information <NUM> listed in the DID document <NUM> may represent a different persona of the DID owner <NUM> for different purposes.

A persona may be pseudo anonymous. As an example, the DID owner <NUM> may include a pen name in the DID document when identifying him or her as a writer posting articles on a blog. A persona may be fully anonymous. As an example, the DID owner <NUM> may only want to disclose his or her job title or other background data (e.g., a school teacher, an FBI agent, an adult older than <NUM> years old, etc.) but not his or her name in the DID document. As yet another example, a persona may be specific to who the DID owner <NUM> is as an individual. As an example, the DID owner <NUM> may include information identifying him or her as a volunteer for a particular charity organization, an employee of a particular corporation, an award winner of a particular award, and so forth.

The DID document <NUM> may also include attestation information <NUM>. The attestation information <NUM> may be any information that is associated with the DID owner <NUM>'s background. For instance, the attestation information <NUM> may be (but not limited to) a qualification, an achievement, a government ID, a government right such as a passport or a driver's license, a payment provider or bank account, a university degree or other educational history, employment status and history, or any other information about the DID owner <NUM>'s background. In some embodiments, the DID owner <NUM> collects various signed attestations that are included in the attestation information from different third party entities.

The DID document <NUM> may also include various other information <NUM>. In some embodiments, the other information <NUM> may include metadata specifying when the DID document <NUM> was created and/or when it was last modified. In other embodiments, the other information <NUM> may include cryptographic proofs of the integrity of the DID document <NUM>. In still further embodiments, the other information <NUM> may include additional information that is either specified by the specific method implementing the DID document or desired by the DID owner <NUM>.

<FIG> also illustrates a distributed ledger <NUM>. The distributed ledger <NUM> may be any decentralized, distributed network that includes various computing systems that are in communication with each other. For example, the distributed ledger <NUM> may include a first distributed computing system <NUM>, a second distributed computing system <NUM>, a third distributed computing system <NUM>, and any number of additional distributed computing systems as illustrated by the ellipses <NUM>. The distributed ledger <NUM> may operate according to any known standards or methods for distributed ledgers. Examples of conventional distributed ledgers that may correspond to the distributed ledger <NUM> include, but are not limited to, Bitcoin [BTC], Ethereum, and Litecoin.

In the context of DID <NUM>, the distributed ledger or blockchain <NUM> is used to store a representation of the DID <NUM> that points to the DID document <NUM>. In some embodiments, the DID document <NUM> may be stored on the actual distributed ledger. Alternatively, in other embodiments the DID document <NUM> may be stored in a data storage (not illustrated) that is associated with the distributed ledger <NUM>.

As mentioned, a representation of the DID <NUM> is stored on each distributed computing system of the distributed ledger <NUM>. For example, in <FIG> this is shown as DID hash <NUM>, DID hash <NUM>, and DID hash <NUM>, which are ideally identical hashed copies of the same DID. The DID hash <NUM>, DID hash <NUM>, and DID hash <NUM> may then point to the location of the DID document <NUM>. The distributed ledger or blockchain <NUM> may also store numerous other representations of other DIDs as illustrated by references <NUM>, <NUM>, <NUM>, <NUM>, <NUM>, <NUM>, <NUM>, <NUM>, and <NUM>.

In one embodiment, when the DID owner <NUM> creates the DID <NUM> and the associated DID document <NUM>, the DID hash <NUM>, DID hash <NUM>, and DID hash <NUM> are written to the distributed ledger <NUM>. The distributed ledger <NUM> thus records that the DID <NUM> now exists. Since the distributed ledger <NUM> is decentralized, the DID <NUM> is not under the control of any entity outside of the DID owner <NUM>. DID hash <NUM>, DID hash <NUM>, and DID hash <NUM> may each include, in addition to the pointer to the DID document <NUM>, a record or time stamp that specifies when the DID <NUM> was created. At a later date, when modifications are made to the DID document <NUM>, each modification (and potentially also a timestamp of the modification) may also be recorded in DID hash <NUM>, DID hash <NUM>, and DID hash <NUM>. DID hash <NUM>, DID hash <NUM>, and DID hash <NUM> may further include a copy of the public key <NUM> so that the DID <NUM> is cryptographically bound to the DID document <NUM>.

Having described DIDs and how they operate generally with reference to <FIG>, specific embodiments of DID environments will now be explained. Turning to <FIG>, an environment <NUM> that may be used to perform various DID management operations and services will now be explained. It will be appreciated that the environment of <FIG> may reference elements from <FIG> as needed for ease of explanation.

As shown in <FIG>, the environment <NUM> may include various devices and computing systems that may be owned or otherwise under the control of the DID owner <NUM>. These may include a user device <NUM>. The user device <NUM> may be, but is not limited to, a mobile device such as a smart phone, a computing device such as a laptop computer, or any device such as a car or an appliance that includes computing abilities. The device <NUM> may include a web browser <NUM> operating on the device and an operating system <NUM> operating the device. More broadly speaking, the dashed line <NUM> represents that all of these devices may be owned or otherwise under the control of the DID owner <NUM>.

The environment <NUM> also includes a DID management module <NUM>. It will be noted that in operation, the DID management module <NUM> may reside on and be executed by one or more of user device <NUM>, web browser <NUM>, and the operating system <NUM> as illustrated by respective lines 301a, 302a, and 303a. Accordingly, the DID management module <NUM> is shown as being separate for ease of explanation. In some embodiments, the management module <NUM> may be referred to as a "digital wallet" or a "user agent".

As shown in <FIG>, the DID management module <NUM> includes a DID creation module <NUM>. The DID creation module <NUM> may be used by the DID owner <NUM> to create the DID <NUM> or any number of additional DIDs, such as DID <NUM>. In one embodiment, the DID creation module may include or otherwise have access to a User Interface (UI) element <NUM> that may guide the DID owner <NUM> in creating the DID <NUM>. The DID creation module <NUM> may have one or more drivers that are configured to work with specific distributed ledgers such as distributed ledger <NUM> so that the DID <NUM> complies with the underlying methods of that distributed ledger.

A specific embodiment will now be described. For example, the UI <NUM> may provide a prompt for the user to enter a user name or some other human recognizable name. This name may be used as a display name for the DID <NUM> that will be generated. As previously described, the DID <NUM> may be a long string of random numbers and letters and so having a human-recognizable name for a display name may be advantageous. The DID creation module <NUM> may then generate the DID <NUM>. In the embodiments having the UI <NUM>, the DID <NUM> may be shown in a listing of identities and may be associated with the human-recognizable name.

The DID creation module <NUM> may also include a key generation module <NUM>. The key generation module may generate the private key <NUM> and public key <NUM> pair previously described. The DID creation module <NUM> may then use the DID <NUM> and the private and public key pair to generate the DID document <NUM>.

In operation, the DID creation module <NUM> accesses a registrar <NUM> that is configured to the specific distributed ledger that will be recording the transactions related to the DID <NUM>. The DID creation module <NUM> uses the registrar <NUM> to record DID hash <NUM>, DID hash <NUM>, and DID hash <NUM> in the distributed ledger in the manner previously described, and to store the DID document <NUM> in the manner previously described. This process may use the public key <NUM> in the hash generation.

In some embodiments, the DID management module <NUM> may include an ownership module <NUM>. The ownership module <NUM> may provide mechanisms that ensure that the DID owner <NUM> is in sole control of the DID <NUM>. In this way, the provider of the DID management module <NUM> is able to ensure that the provider does not control the DID <NUM>, but is only providing the management services.

As previously discussed, the key generation module <NUM> generates the private key <NUM> and public key <NUM> pair and the public key <NUM> is then recorded in the DID document <NUM>. Accordingly, the public key <NUM> may be used by all devices associated with the DID owner <NUM> and all third parties that desire to provide services to the DID owner <NUM>. Accordingly, when the DID owner <NUM> desires to associate anew device with the DID <NUM>, the DID owner <NUM> may execute the DID creation module <NUM> on the new device. The DID creation module <NUM> may then use the registrar <NUM> to update the DID document <NUM> to reflect that the new device is now associated with the DID <NUM>, which update would be reflected in a transaction on the distributed ledger <NUM>, as previously described.

In some embodiments, however, it may be advantageous to have a public key per device <NUM> owned by the DID owner <NUM> as this may allow the DID owner <NUM> to sign with the device-specific public key without having to access a general public key. In other words, since the DID owner <NUM> will use different devices at different times (for example using a mobile phone in one instance and then using a laptop computer in another instance), it is advantageous to have a key associated with each device to provide efficiencies in signing using the keys. Accordingly, in such embodiments the key generation module <NUM> may generate additional public keys <NUM> and <NUM> when the additional devices execute the DID creation module <NUM>. These additional public keys may be associated with the private key <NUM> or in some instances may be paired with a new private key.

In those embodiments where the additional public keys <NUM> and <NUM> are associated with different devices, the additional public keys <NUM> and <NUM> may be recorded in the DID document <NUM> as being associated with those devices. This is shown in <FIG>. It will be appreciated that the DID document <NUM> may include the information (information <NUM>, <NUM> and <NUM> through <NUM>) previously described in relation to <FIG> in addition to the information (information <NUM>, <NUM> and <NUM>) shown in <FIG>. If the DID document <NUM> existed prior to the device-specific public keys being generated, then the DID document <NUM> would be updated by the creation module <NUM> via the registrar <NUM> and this would be reflected in an updated transaction on the distributed ledger <NUM>.

In some embodiments, the DID owner <NUM> may desire to keep secret the association of a device with a public key or the association of a device with the DID <NUM>. Accordingly, the DID creation module <NUM> may cause that such data be secretly shown in the DID document <NUM>.

As described thus far, the DID <NUM> has been associated with all the devices under the control of the DID owner <NUM>, even when the devices have their own public keys. However, in some embodiments it may be useful for each device or some subset of devices under the control of the DID owner <NUM> to each have their own DID. Thus, in some embodiments the DID creation module <NUM> may generate an additional DID, for example DID <NUM>, for each device. The DID creation module <NUM> would then generate private and public key pairs and DID documents for each of the devices and have them recorded on the distributed ledger <NUM> in the manner previously described. Such embodiments may be advantageous for devices that may change ownership as it may be possible to associate the device-specific DID to the new owner of the device by granting the new owner authorization rights in the DID document and revoking such rights from the old owner.

As mentioned, to ensure that the private key <NUM> is totally in the control of the DID owner <NUM>, the private key <NUM> is created on the user device <NUM>, browser <NUM>, or operating system <NUM> that is owned or controlled by the DID owner <NUM> that executed the DID management module <NUM>. In this way, there is little chance that a third party (and most consequentially, the provider of the DID management module <NUM>) may gain control of the private key <NUM>.

However, there is a chance that the device storing the private key <NUM> may be lost by the DID owner <NUM>, which may cause the DID owner <NUM> to lose access to the DID <NUM>. Accordingly, in some embodiments, the UI <NUM> may include the option to allow the DID owner <NUM> to export the private key <NUM> to an off device secured database <NUM> that is under the control of the DID owner <NUM>. As an example, the database <NUM> may be one of the identity hubs <NUM> described below with respect to <FIG>. A storage module <NUM> is configured to store data (such as the private key <NUM> or the attestation information <NUM> made by or about the DID owner <NUM>) off device in the database <NUM> or in identity hubs <NUM> that will be described in more detail to follow. Of course, in some embodiments the storage module <NUM> may store at least some data on the device if the device has sufficient storage resources. In some embodiments, the private key <NUM> may be stored as a QR code that may be scanned by the DID owner <NUM>.

In other embodiments, the DID management module <NUM> may include a recovery module <NUM> that may be used to recover a lost private key <NUM>. In operation, the recovery module <NUM> allows the DID owner <NUM> to select one or more recovery mechanisms <NUM> at the time the DID <NUM> is created that may later be used to recover the lost private key. In those embodiments having the UI <NUM>, the UI <NUM> may allow the DID owner <NUM> to provide information that will be used by the one or more recovery mechanisms <NUM> during recovery. The recovery module <NUM> may then be run on any device associated with the DID <NUM>.

The DID management module <NUM> may also include a revocation module <NUM> that is used to revoke or sever a device from the DID <NUM>. In operation, the revocation module may use the UI element <NUM>, which may allow the DID owner <NUM> to indicate a desire to remove a device from being associated with the DID <NUM>. In one embodiment, the revocation module <NUM> may access the DID document <NUM> and may cause that all references to the device be removed from the DID document <NUM>. Alternatively, the public key for the device may be removed. This change in the DID document <NUM> may then be reflected as an updated transaction on the distributed ledger <NUM> as previously described.

<FIG> illustrates an embodiment of an environment <NUM> in which a DID such as DID <NUM> may be utilized. Specifically, the environment <NUM> will be used to describe the use of the DID <NUM> in relation to one or more decentralized stores or identity hubs <NUM> that are each under the control of the DID owner <NUM> to store data belonging to or regarding the DID owner <NUM>. For instance, data may be stored within the identity hubs using the storage module <NUM> of <FIG>. It will be noted that <FIG> may include references to elements first discussed in relation to <FIG> or <FIG> and thus use the same reference numeral for ease of explanation.

In one embodiment, the identity hubs <NUM> may be multiple instances of the same identity hub. This is represented by the line 410A. Thus, the various identity hubs <NUM> may include at least some of the same data and services. Accordingly, if a change is made to part of at least some of the data (and potentially any part of any of the data) in one of the identity hubs <NUM>, the change may be reflected in one or more of (and perhaps all of) the remaining identity hubs.

The identity hubs <NUM> may be any data store that may be in the exclusive control of the DID owner <NUM>. As an example only, the first identity hub <NUM> and second identity hub <NUM> are implemented in cloud storage (perhaps within the same cloud, or even on different clouds managed by different cloud providers) and thus may be able to hold a large amount of data. Accordingly, a full set of the data may be stored in these identity hubs.

However, the identity hubs <NUM> and <NUM> may have less memory space. Accordingly, in these identity hubs a descriptor of the data stored in the first and second identity hubs may be included. Alternatively, a record of changes made to the data in other identity hubs may be included. Thus, changes in one of the identity hubs <NUM> are either fully replicated in the other identity hubs or at least a record or descriptor of that data is recorded in the other identity hubs.

Because the identity hubs may be multiple instances of the same identity hub, only a full description of the first identity hub <NUM> will be provided as this description may also apply to the identity hubs <NUM> through <NUM>. As illustrated, identity hub <NUM> may include data storage <NUM>. The data storage <NUM> may be used to store any type of data that is associated with the DID owner <NUM>. In one embodiment the data may be a collection <NUM> of a specific type of data corresponding to a specific protocol. For example, the collection <NUM> may be medical records data that corresponds to a specific protocol for medical data. The collection <NUM> may include any other type of data, such as attestations <NUM> made by or about the DID owner <NUM>.

In one embodiment, the stored data may have different authentication and privacy settings <NUM> associated with the stored data. For example, a first subset of the data may have a setting <NUM> that allows the data to be publicly exposed, but that does not include any authentication to the DID owner <NUM>. This type of data may be for relatively unimportant data such as color schemes and the like. A second subset of the data may have a setting <NUM> that allows the data to be publicly exposed and that includes authentication to the DID owner <NUM>. A third subset of the data may have a setting <NUM> that encrypts the subset of data with the private key <NUM> and public key <NUM> pair (or some other key pair) associated with the DID owner <NUM>. This type of data will require a party to have access to the public key <NUM> (or to some other associated public key) in order to decrypt the data. This process may also include authentication to the DID owner <NUM>. A fourth subset of the data may have a setting <NUM> that restricts this data to a subset of third parties. This may require that public keys associated with the subset of third parties be used to decrypt the data. For example, the DID owner <NUM> may cause the setting <NUM> to specify that only public keys associated with friends of the DID owner <NUM> may decrypt this data. With respect to data stored by the storage module <NUM>, these settings <NUM> may be at least partially composed by the storage module <NUM> of <FIG>.

In some embodiments, the identity hub <NUM> may have a permissions module <NUM> that allows the DID owner <NUM> to set specific authorization or permissions for third parties such as third parties <NUM> and <NUM> to access the identity hub. For example, the DID owner <NUM> may provide access permission to his or her spouse to all the data <NUM>. Alternatively, the DID owner <NUM> may allow access to his or her doctor for any medical records. It will be appreciated that the DID owner <NUM> may give permission to any number of third parties to access a subset of the data <NUM>. This will be explained in more detail to follow. With respect to data stored by the storage module <NUM>, these access permissions <NUM> may be at least partially composed by the storage module <NUM> of <FIG>.

The identity hub <NUM> may also have a messaging module <NUM>. In operation, the messaging module allows the identity hub to receive messages such as requests from parties such as third parties <NUM> and <NUM> to access the data and services of the identity hub. In addition, the messaging module <NUM> allows the identity hub <NUM> to respond to the messages from the third parties and to also communicate with a DID resolver <NUM>. This will be explained in more detail to follow. The ellipsis <NUM> represents that the identity hub <NUM> may have additional services as circumstances warrant.

In one embodiment, the DID owner <NUM> may wish to authenticate a new device <NUM> with the identity hub <NUM> that is already associated with the DID <NUM> in the manner previously described. Accordingly, the DID owner <NUM> may utilize the DID management module <NUM> associated with the new user device <NUM> to send a message to the identity hub <NUM> asserting that the new user device is associated with the DID <NUM> of the DID owner <NUM>.

However, the identity hub <NUM> may not initially recognize the new device as being owned by the DID owner <NUM>. Accordingly, the identity hub <NUM> may use the messaging module <NUM> to contact the DID resolver <NUM>. The message sent to the DID resolver <NUM> may include the DID <NUM>.

The DID resolver <NUM> may be a service, application, or module that is configured in operation to search the distributed ledger <NUM> for DID documents associated with DIDs. Accordingly, in the embodiment the DID resolver <NUM> may search the distributed ledger <NUM> using the DID <NUM>, which may result in the DID resolver <NUM> finding the DID document <NUM>. The DID document <NUM> may then be provided to the identity hub <NUM>.

As discussed previously, the DID document <NUM> may include a public key <NUM> or <NUM> that is associated with the new user device <NUM>. To verify that the new user device is owned by the DID owner <NUM>, the identity hub <NUM> may provide a cryptographic challenge to the new user device <NUM> using the messaging module <NUM>. This cryptographic challenge will be structured such that only a device having access to the private key <NUM> will be able to successfully answer the challenge.

In this embodiment, since the new user device is owned by DID owner <NUM> and thus has access to the private key <NUM>, the challenge may be successfully answered. The identity hub <NUM> may then record in the permissions <NUM> that the new user device <NUM> is able to access the data and services of the identity hub <NUM> and also the rest of the identity hubs <NUM>.

It will be noted that this process of authenticating the new user device <NUM> was performed without the need for the DID owner <NUM> to provide any username, password or the like to the provider of the identity hub <NUM> (i.e., the first cloud storage provider) before the identity hub <NUM> could be accessed. Rather, the access was determined in a decentralized manner based on the DID <NUM>, the DID document <NUM>, and the associated public and private keys. Since these were at all times in the control of the DID owner <NUM>, the provider of the identity hub <NUM> was not involved and thus has no knowledge of the transaction or of any personal information of the DID owner <NUM>.

In another example embodiment, the DID owner <NUM> may provide the DID <NUM> to the third-party entity <NUM> so that the third party may access data or services stored on the identity hub <NUM>. For example, the DID owner <NUM> may be a human who is at a scientific conference who desires to allow the third party <NUM>, who is also a human, access to his or her research data. Accordingly, the DID owner <NUM> may provide the DID <NUM> to the third party <NUM>.

Once the third party <NUM> has access to the DID <NUM>, he or she may access the DID resolver <NUM> to access the DID document <NUM>. As previously discussed, the DID document <NUM> may include an end point <NUM> that is an address or pointer to services associated with the decentralized identity.

Completing the research data example, the third party <NUM> may send a message to the messaging module <NUM> asking for permission to access the research data. The messaging module <NUM> may then send a message to the DID owner <NUM> asking if the third party <NUM> should be given access to the research data. Because the DID owner desires to provide access to this data, the DID owner <NUM> may allow permission to the third party <NUM> and this permission may be recorded in the permissions <NUM>.

The messaging module <NUM> may then message the third party <NUM> informing the third party that he or she is able to access the research data. The identity hub <NUM> and the third party <NUM> may then directly communicate so that the third party may access the data. It will be noted that in many cases, it will actually be an identity hub associated with the third party <NUM> that communicates with the identity hub <NUM>. However, it may be a device of the third party <NUM> that does the communication.

Advantageously, the above described process allows the identity hub <NUM> and the third party <NUM> to communicate and to share the data without the need for the third party to access the identity hub <NUM> in the conventional manner. Rather, the communication is provisioned in the decentralized manner using the DID <NUM> and the DID document <NUM>. This advantageously allows the DID owner to be in full control of the process.

As shown in <FIG>, the third party <NUM> may also request permission for access to the identity hub <NUM> using the DID <NUM> and the DID document <NUM>. Accordingly, the embodiments disclosed herein allow access to any number of third parties to the identity hubs <NUM>.

<FIG> illustrates an embodiment of an environment <NUM> that will be used to describe a presentation interrupt for a DID attestation or claim. It will be noted that <FIG> may include references to elements first discussed in relation to <FIG> and thus may use the same reference numeral for ease of explanation.

As illustrated, the environment <NUM> includes an attestation module <NUM>. In one embodiment, the attestation module <NUM> may be implemented by a third party such as the provider of the DID management module <NUM> and/or the identity hubs <NUM>. In some embodiments, the attestation module <NUM> may be hosted on a server computer that is separate from the devices <NUM> owned by the DID owner <NUM>. In other embodiments, the attestation module <NUM> may be part of DID management module <NUM> or may at least share some functions with the DID management module <NUM>. In still other embodiments, the attestation module <NUM> may be part of or controlled by a third party entity such as an entity <NUM> or <NUM>.

A specific use embodiment of the attestation module <NUM> will now be described in relation to a presentation interrupt for a DID attestation or claim. For example, suppose that DID owner <NUM> was associated with an entity <NUM>. The entity <NUM> may be any type of entity such as a company or an organization or even another human user. In the specific embodiment, it will be assumed that the entity <NUM> is a government body such as the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) that has issued a driver's license to the DID owner <NUM>. As illustrated, the entity <NUM> may include a DID <NUM> that has been generated for the entity <NUM> in the manner previously described.

The DID owner <NUM> may request at any point in time a signed attestation or claim <NUM> from the entity <NUM> that verifies that the DID owner <NUM> has a valid driver's license that has been issued by the entity <NUM>. In one embodiment, the request may be made directly to the entity <NUM> by the DID owner <NUM>, while in other embodiments the request may be made via the DID owner <NUM> first contacting the attestation module <NUM> and then having the attestation module <NUM> make the request to the entity <NUM>. The attestation <NUM> is thus related to the DID <NUM> of the DID owner <NUM> and may be considered a DID attestation.

The attestation <NUM> may also be referred to as a signed claim, credential or verified credential such as the attestation <NUM> of the DID document <NUM>. That is, the attestation or verified credential may provide information about the DID owner <NUM> and/or about various entities the DID owner <NUM> has interactions with. For consistency of explanation, "attestation" will be the term used in the following discussion.

In response to the request for the attestation <NUM>, the entity <NUM> may create the attestation <NUM> related to verifying that the DID owner <NUM> has a valid driver's license. In some embodiments, the attestation <NUM> may be a cryptographically protected pointer that points to a location of an identity hub <NUM> of the entity <NUM> where the driver's license information is held. The entity <NUM> may then use its public keys to digitally sign the attestation <NUM> to thereby verify that the entity <NUM> agrees that the DID owner <NUM> has a valid driver's license. The attestation module <NUM> may then request that DID owner <NUM> endorse or digitally sign the attestation <NUM> by using the public key <NUM>. In this way, the DID owner <NUM> is able to verify that that he or she agrees with the driver's license information of the attestation <NUM> when providing the attestation <NUM> to other parties such as the entity <NUM>.

In some embodiments, the attestation <NUM> may include various additional information besides the information that specifies that DID owner <NUM> has a valid driver's license. For example, the entity <NUM> may include interrupt metadata or information <NUM> in the attestation <NUM>. As will be explained in more detail to follow, the interrupt metadata <NUM> may cause, whenever the DID owner <NUM> attempts to present the attestation <NUM> to an entity such as the entity <NUM>, that the entity <NUM> be contacted before the attestation <NUM> is presented to the entity <NUM>. Thus, the interrupt metadata <NUM> causes an "interruption" in the presentation process. As will also be explained in more detail to follow, the entity <NUM> may then be able to give or withhold authorization for the DID owner <NUM> to present the attestation <NUM> to the entity <NUM>.

There may be various reasons why the entity <NUM> may desire to include the interrupt metadata <NUM> in the attestation <NUM>. In one instance, the entity <NUM> may want to verify that the party who is attempting to present the attestation <NUM> is actually the DID owner <NUM>. In another instance, the entity <NUM> may want to ensure that the DID owner <NUM> is attempting to use the attestation <NUM> in a permitted geographical location. In still a further instance the entity <NUM> may want to ensure that the attestation <NUM> is up to date, which may be helpful if a long period of time has passed since the entity <NUM> issued the attestation <NUM> to the DID owner <NUM>. It will be noted that there may be any number of additional reasons why the entity <NUM> may want to include the interrupt metadata <NUM> in the attestation <NUM>.

In some embodiments, the interrupt metadata <NUM> may include contact metadata <NUM>. The contact metadata <NUM> may include information that directs how to contact the entity <NUM> when the DID owner <NUM> attempts to present the attestation <NUM> to the entity <NUM> or some other entity. Accordingly, in some embodiments the attestation module <NUM> may use the contact metadata <NUM> to contact the entity <NUM>. The ellipses <NUM> represent that the attestation <NUM> may include any number of additional elements as circumstances warrant.

Although the disclosed embodiment is described in relation to providing an attestation <NUM> for a driver's license issued by the entity <NUM>, this process may also be performed in other scenarios. For example, an attestation may be generated by various third party entities that are related to one or more of a qualification, an achievement, a government ID, a government right such as a passport or a driver's license, a payment provider or bank account, a university degree or other educational history. It will be noted that any number of attestations may be generated about any number of subjects and thus the embodiments disclosed herein are not limited to any specific type or number of attestations.

The attestation <NUM> that is generated by the entity <NUM> on behalf of the DID owner <NUM> may be provided to the DID owner as shown at <NUM> and stored in the identity hub <NUM>. Accordingly, the DID owner <NUM> may be considered to be an attestation <NUM> owner since the DID owner <NUM> is the subject of the attestation. In other words, the attestation <NUM> includes information about the DID owner <NUM> generated by the entity <NUM>. It will be noted that although not illustrated the entity <NUM> may utilize the attestation module <NUM> when providing the attestation <NUM> to the DID owner <NUM>.

In one specific embodiment, suppose that the entity <NUM>, which may have its own DID <NUM> generated in the manner previously described, is a car rental agency or like business that may rent cars or other types of motorized vehicles to the DID owner <NUM>. Accordingly, in such embodiments the DID owner <NUM> may desire to present the attestation <NUM> to the entity <NUM> to prove that he or she has a valid driver's license so that the entity <NUM> will rent the car or motorized vehicle to him or her.

Accordingly, the attestation module <NUM> may include an attestation presentation module <NUM>. In operation, the attestation presentation module <NUM> may be able to access the attestation <NUM> from the identity hub <NUM> as shown at 503A so as to present the attestation <NUM> to the entity <NUM>.

In the embodiment, the attestation presentation module <NUM> may receive a request 503B from the DID owner <NUM> to present to the attestation <NUM> to the entity <NUM>. This may occur at the time the DID owner <NUM> wants to rent the car or motorized vehicle from the entity <NUM>. Thus, the request 503B may be considered an attempt by the DID owner <NUM> to present the attestation <NUM> to the entity <NUM>.

In the embodiment, the attestation presentation module <NUM> may access the attestation <NUM> as previously described. However, when attempting to present the attestation <NUM> to the entity <NUM>, the attestation presentation module <NUM> may read or otherwise operate on the interrupt metadata <NUM> that is included in the attestation <NUM>. As previously described, the interrupt metadata <NUM> may prevent the attestation presentation module <NUM> from being able to complete the presentation of the attestation <NUM> to the entity <NUM> and may require that the entity <NUM> be contacted for authorization to present the attestation <NUM>. In other words, the interrupt metadata <NUM> makes it so the DID owner <NUM> is not able to present the attestation <NUM> to the entity <NUM> without first receiving authorization in some form from the entity <NUM> to present the attestation.

Accordingly, as shown at <NUM>, the attestation presentation module <NUM> may contact the entity <NUM> using the contact metadata <NUM> if included in the interrupt metadata <NUM>. Upon being contacted by the attestation presentation module <NUM>, the entity <NUM> may determine if it wants to authorize the DID owner <NUM> to be able to present the attestation <NUM> to the entity <NUM> or not. Accordingly, the entity <NUM> may generate authorization information <NUM> that indicates if the DID owner <NUM> is to be able to present the attestation <NUM>. The authorization information <NUM> may be received by the attestation presentation module <NUM> and attached to the attestation <NUM> so as to control whether the DID owner <NUM> is authorized or not to present the attestation <NUM> and provided to the DID owner <NUM> as shown at <NUM>.

The authorization information <NUM> may take several forms as will now be explained. It will be noted that the authorization information <NUM> may include one of the discussed forms, all of the discussed forms, a subset of the discussed forms, or even a one or more forms in addition to or alternative to those discussed below as illustrated by the ellipses <NUM>.

In one embodiment, the authorization information <NUM> may take the form of or include permission information <NUM>. The permission information <NUM> may specify a given permission for the DID owner <NUM>. For example, the entity <NUM> may have no problem with the DID owner <NUM> presenting the attestation <NUM> to the entity <NUM> and so the permission information <NUM> may grant permission. In the embodiment where the entity <NUM> is the DMV and the entity <NUM> is the car rental agency, the DMV <NUM> may provide permission information <NUM> that allows the DID owner <NUM> to present the attestation <NUM> if it has no problem with the DID owner renting from the car rental agency <NUM>.

However, in the case where the entity <NUM> does not want the DID owner <NUM> to present the attestation <NUM> to the entity <NUM>, the permission information <NUM> may deny permission. In one embodiment, this denial may take the form of the permission information <NUM> rendering the attestation <NUM> unusable by the entity <NUM>. In such case, even if the DID owner <NUM> is somehow able to present the attestation <NUM> to the entity <NUM>, it would be unusable by the entity <NUM>.

In the embodiment where the entity <NUM> is the DMV and the entity <NUM> is the car rental agency, suppose the car rental agency <NUM> has a reputation for renting cars or other motorized vehicles that have caused a large number of accidents due to poor car maintenance. In such embodiment, the DMV <NUM> may want to deny authorization to present the attestation <NUM> so that the DID owner <NUM> is not able to rent from the car rental agency <NUM>. Accordingly, the DMV <NUM> may provide permission information <NUM> that denies permission to present to the car rental agency <NUM> or that renders the attestation <NUM> unusable by the car rental agency <NUM> as previously described.

In another embodiment, the authorization information <NUM> may take the form of or include call-back metadata <NUM>. In operation, the call-back metadata <NUM> may direct the entity <NUM> to contact the entity <NUM> to determine if the attestation <NUM> is still valid, which may be useful if a long period of time has passed since the entity <NUM> issued the attestation <NUM> to the DID owner <NUM>. In the embodiment where the entity <NUM> is the DMV and the entity <NUM> is the car rental agency, the call-back metadata <NUM> may allow the car rental agency <NUM> to find out from the DMV <NUM> if the driver's license of DID owner <NUM> is still valid. This may increase the confidence of the interaction between the DMV <NUM> and the car rental agency <NUM>.

In another embodiment, the authorization information <NUM> may take the form of or include location information <NUM>. In operation, the location information <NUM> may limit the ability of the DID owner <NUM> to present the attestation <NUM> to certain locations that are approved by the entity <NUM>. Thus, the DID owner may only be able to present the attestation <NUM> to the entity <NUM> if the entity <NUM> is located in an approved location. For example, in the embodiment where the entity <NUM> is the DMV and the entity <NUM> is the car rental agency, the DMV <NUM> may wish to limit use of the attestation <NUM> including the driver's license information to certain countries it has determined are safe. Thus, if the car rental agency <NUM> is located in an approved country, the location information <NUM> may allow the DID owner <NUM> to present the attestation <NUM> to the car rental agency <NUM>. However, if the car rental agency <NUM> is not located in an approved country, the location information <NUM> may not allow the DID owner <NUM> to present the attestation <NUM> to the car rental agency <NUM>.

In still another embodiment, the authorization information <NUM> may take the form of or include an update <NUM> to the attestation <NUM>. Thus, the update <NUM> allows the entity <NUM> to ensure that the attestation <NUM> is always up to date when the DID owner <NUM> presents it to the entity <NUM>. For example, in the embodiment where the entity <NUM> is the DMV and the entity <NUM> is the car rental agency, the update <NUM> allows the DMV <NUM> to ensure that the DID owner <NUM> always has updated driver's license information when renting from the car rental agency <NUM>.

In some embodiments, prior to providing the authorization information <NUM>, the entity <NUM> may require that DID owner <NUM> provide identification information <NUM> as shown at <NUM> that verifies that it is actually the DID owner <NUM> who is attempting to present the attestation <NUM> to the entity <NUM>. This may help the entity <NUM> ensure that a third party is not pretending to be the DID owner <NUM> and trying to use the attestation <NUM> is an impermissible way. The identification information <NUM> may simply be the DID <NUM>. Alternatively, identification information <NUM> may be a pairwise identifier between the DID owner <NUM> and the entity <NUM>. The identification information <NUM> may include further identifying information as needed that is agreed upon between the DID owner <NUM> and the entity <NUM>. Thus, the DID owner <NUM> may be able to specify with the entity <NUM> what types of identifying information should be requested by the entity <NUM> so as to maintain control over his or her identity.

For example, suppose in the embodiment where the entity <NUM> is the DMV and the entity <NUM> is the car rental agency that a third party who is not the DID owner <NUM> attempts to present the attestation <NUM> that include the driver's license information to rent a car from the car rental agency <NUM>. The third party may have stolen the device of the DID owner <NUM> and have gotten access to the attestation <NUM>. The car rental agency <NUM> may not have a way to determine if the party presenting the attestation <NUM> is actually the DID owner <NUM>. By requiring the identification information <NUM> to validate or authenticate the DID owner <NUM>, the DMV <NUM> may be able to prevent the impermissible use of the attestation <NUM>.

In response to receiving the authorization information <NUM> (in whatever valid form), the DID owner <NUM> may then be authorized to present the attestation <NUM> to the entity <NUM>. Accordingly, as shown at <NUM> the attestation presentation module <NUM> may present the attestation <NUM> to the entity <NUM>. The entity <NUM> may then use the attestation <NUM> in a desired manner. For example, in the embodiment where the entity <NUM> is the DMV and the entity <NUM> is the car rental agency, the car rental agency <NUM> may use the attestation <NUM> to determine if the DID owner <NUM> has a valid driver's license and if it should rent a car or other motorized vehicle to the DID owner <NUM>.

<FIG> illustrates a flow chart of an example method <NUM> for providing a presentation interrupt for a DID attestation or claim. The method <NUM> will be described with respect to one or more of <FIG> discussed previously.

The method <NUM> includes an act of accessing a DID attestation issued by a first entity of a decentralized network (act <NUM>). The DID attestation defines information that has been generated by the first entity about a DID owner who is the subject of the DID attestation. The DID attestation includes interrupt metadata that directs that the first entity be contacted prior to the DID owner being able to present the DID attestation to a second entity of the decentralized network.

For example, as previously described the attestation presentation module <NUM> may access the attestation <NUM> as shown at 503A. The attestation <NUM> may be generated by the entity <NUM> and defines information about the DID owner <NUM> who is the subject of the attestation <NUM>. The attestation <NUM> is thus related to the DID <NUM> of the DID owner <NUM> and may be considered a DID attestation. The attestation <NUM> may include the interrupt metadata <NUM> that directs that the entity <NUM> be contacted before the DID owner <NUM> is able to present the attestation <NUM> to the entity <NUM>.

The method <NUM> includes, in response to the DID owner attempting to present the DID attestation to the second entity, an act of contacting the first entity as directed by the interrupt metadata (act <NUM>). For example, as previously described the attestation presentation module <NUM> may, in response to the DID owner <NUM> attempting to present the attestation <NUM> to the entity <NUM> as shown at 503B, contact the entity <NUM> as shown at <NUM> as directed by the interrupt metadata <NUM>.

The method <NUM> includes an act of receiving authorization information from the first entity (act <NUM>). The authorization information indicates if the DID owner is able to present the DID attestation to the second entity. For example, as previously described the attestation presentation module <NUM> may receive the authorization information <NUM> as shown at <NUM>. The authorization information <NUM> may identify if the DID owner <NUM> is able to present the attestation <NUM> to the entity <NUM>.

For the processes and methods disclosed herein, the operations performed in the processes and methods may be implemented in differing order. Furthermore, the outlined operations are only provided as examples, and some of the operations may be optional, combined into fewer steps and operations, supplemented with further operations, or expanded into additional operations.

Claim 1:
A computing system that is implemented in a decentralized network that implements a distributed ledger (<NUM>), the distributed ledger being configured to back one or more decentralized identities, DID (<NUM>; <NUM>), for one or more users of the computing system, the computing system comprising:
one or more processors (<NUM>); and
one or more computer-readable media (<NUM>) having thereon computer-executable instructions that are structured such that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to:
access (<NUM>) a DID attestation (<NUM>; <NUM>) issued by a first entity (<NUM>; <NUM>) of the decentralized network, the DID attestation defining information that has been generated by the first entity about a DID owner (<NUM>) who is the subject of the DID attestation, the DID attestation including interrupt metadata (<NUM>) that directs that the first entity be contacted prior to the DID owner being able to present the DID attestation to a second entity (<NUM>; <NUM>) of the decentralized network;
in response to the DID owner attempting to present the DID attestation to the second entity, contact (<NUM>) the first entity as directed by the interrupt metadata; and
receiving (<NUM>) authorization information (<NUM>) from the first entity, the authorization information indicating if the DID owner is able to present the DID attestation to the second entity.