An identity system that includes a primary root-of-trust in self-certifying identifiers that are strongly bound at issuance to a cryptographic signing (public, private) key pair, enabling any entity to establish control over an autonomic namespace in an independent, interoperable, and portable way.
Related Concepts
No related concepts available
Comprehensive Explanation
autonomic-identity-system
Conceptual Definition
An autonomic identity system (AIS) represents a fundamental paradigm shift in digital identity architecture, establishing identity systems where control verification requires no third-party intervention. The term "autonomic" derives from biological autonomic systems—self-regulating processes that operate without conscious oversight—and in the identity context means self-managing, self-certifying, and self-governing.
The defining characteristic of an AIS is that no external party can intervene with the establishment of authenticity for control operations. This is achieved through complete cryptographic verifiability back to the root-of-trust, enabling independent verification of control authority without relying on certificate authorities, blockchain consensus, or other intermediary trust mechanisms.
Key properties include:
Cryptographic root-of-trust: Identity is derived from and bound to cryptographic key material through one-way functions
Self-contained verification: All information necessary to verify control authority is present in the identifier system itself
Decentralized control: Only the entity controlling private keys can prove control authority
Portability: Identifiers are not locked to specific infrastructure or trust domains
Key rotation capability: Unlike basic self-certifying identifiers, autonomic identifiers support secure key rotation while maintaining identifier continuity
Historical Context
The concept of autonomic identity systems emerged from decades of research into self-certifying identifiers and decentralized key management:
Self-Certifying Identifiers (1990s-2000s)
Implementation Notes
Conceptual Implementation Considerations
System Design Principles
When designing systems based on autonomic identity principles:
Separation of concerns: Distinguish between cryptographic verification (which requires no trust) and availability/discovery (which may use untrusted infrastructure)
Infrastructure independence: Design systems so that infrastructure components (witnesses, watchers, storage) are replaceable without compromising security
End-verifiability: Ensure all security-critical operations can be verified by end users without trusting intermediaries
Crypto-agility: Support multiple cryptographic algorithms and enable transitions without breaking existing identifiers
Governance Considerations
Autonomic identity systems require careful governance design:
Key management policies: Establish procedures for key generation, storage, rotation, and recovery
Delegation hierarchies: Define organizational structures for delegated identifiers
Witness selection: Determine criteria for choosing and rotating witness pools
Compromise response: Plan procedures for detecting and recovering from key compromise
Integration Patterns
Integrating autonomic identity systems with existing infrastructure:
Bridge mechanisms: Use OOBIs (Out-Of-Band Introductions) to bootstrap discovery
DID methods: Implement did:keri or did:webs for W3C DID compatibility
Credential systems: Use ACDCs for verifiable credentials built on autonomic identifiers
Legacy integration: Provide translation layers for systems expecting traditional PKI
Early work on self-certifying identifiers established that identifiers could be cryptographically derived from public keys, eliminating the need for external binding authorities. However, these basic implementations suffered from a critical limitation: they were ephemeral—once the controlling private key was compromised or needed rotation, the identifier had to be abandoned.
Autonomic Computing Systems (1990s)
The term "autonomic" was used in 1990s computer science research on self-healing systems and autonomic survivable systems. KERI creator Samuel Smith worked on Navy-funded research in this area, establishing the conceptual foundation for self-managing systems that would later inform autonomic identity design.
Administrative vs. Algorithmic Trust (2000s-2010s)
Traditional identity systems relied on two trust models:
Administrative trust basis: Certificate authorities and trusted third parties (DNS/CA systems)
Algorithmic trust basis: Blockchain consensus mechanisms and distributed ledgers
Both approaches suffered from infrastructure dependencies—administrative systems created single points of failure, while algorithmic systems locked identifiers to specific ledgers and required expensive consensus operations.
The Autonomic Breakthrough
The innovation of autonomic identity systems was recognizing that cryptographic self-certification could be extended to support key rotation through mechanisms like pre-rotation, creating persistent self-certifying identifiers that maintain continuity despite key changes. This enabled truly self-managing identifiers that combine the security of cryptographic binding with the operational flexibility of traditional PKI systems—without the centralized trust dependencies.
No dependency on external certificate authorities reduces operational costs
Supply Chain Provenance:
Products and shipments receive autonomic identifiers
Custody transfers are recorded in KELs
End-to-end verification without trusted intermediaries
Legal Entity Identification:
GLEIF's vLEI system uses KERI to create verifiable legal entity identifiers
Organizational roles and authorizations are cryptographically verifiable
Cross-border identity verification without centralized registries
IoT Device Identity:
Devices establish autonomic identifiers at manufacturing
Firmware updates and configuration changes are recorded in KELs
Device identity persists across ownership transfers
Benefits
Security:
Post-quantum resistant through pre-rotation and cryptographic commitments
Compromise recovery without identifier abandonment
Duplicity detection prevents undetectable forgery
Portability:
Identifiers are not locked to specific infrastructure
Can migrate between witness pools, storage systems, and networks
No vendor lock-in or platform dependencies
Scalability:
No global consensus required for identifier operations
Verification is local and parallelizable
Infrastructure can be scaled independently of identifier operations
Interoperability:
Identifiers work across different systems and trust domains
Standard cryptographic operations enable universal verification
No proprietary protocols or closed ecosystems
Trade-offs
Complexity:
Understanding KELs, pre-rotation, and key event semantics requires technical expertise
Implementation is more complex than simple public key systems
Operational procedures for key management must be carefully designed
Key Management Responsibility:
Controllers bear full responsibility for key security
No "password reset" or account recovery through external parties
Lost keys mean lost control (though pre-rotation enables some recovery scenarios)
Infrastructure Requirements:
While infrastructure is replaceable, some infrastructure (witnesses, watchers) is still needed for availability
Controllers must maintain or access witness pools for indirect mode operations
Storage and bandwidth for KELs grows over time
Adoption Barriers:
Paradigm shift from familiar certificate authority models
Integration with existing systems requires bridging mechanisms
Educational overhead for developers and users
Architectural Significance
Autonomic identity systems represent a fundamental architectural choice: cryptographic verifiability over institutional trust. This choice enables:
Trust spanning layers: Universal identity infrastructure that works across all platforms
End-verifiable security: Users can independently verify without trusting infrastructure
Decentralized control: No single entity controls the identity system
Future-proof architecture: Crypto-agility enables algorithm transitions without system redesign
The autonomic approach positions identity as a security overlay for the Internet, analogous to how IP provides a spanning layer for network protocols. By establishing cryptographic roots-of-trust that are independent of any specific infrastructure, autonomic identity systems enable the vision of a truly decentralized, interoperable identity layer for digital communications.
autonomic-identity-system - vLEI.wiki | KERI Knowledge Base - vLEI.wiki