[capableweb]

It's mentioned in the "How DIDs Differ from Other Globally Unique Identifiers" section.

> The need for globally unique identifiers that do not require a centralized registration authority is not new. UUIDs (Universally Unique Identifiers, also called GUIDs, Globally Unique Identifiers) were developed for this purpose in the 1980s and standardized first by the Open Software Foundation and then by IETF RFC 4122.

> As a rule, however, UUIDs are not globally resolvable and URNs – if resolvable – require a centralized registration authority. In addition, neither UUIDs or URNs inherently address a third characteristic – the ability to cryptographically verify ownership of the identifier.

TLDR: We've used UUIDs for a while now, they're cool and all but don't work in a distributed network as they assume location-addressing to one central, verifying server. Instead, DIDs work via content-addressing, making them more ideal in distributed networks as they're easier to verify.

[hhjj]

A lot of time you don't need to identify people, you just need unique accounts. There is no fundamental need to have one identity linked on HN, reddit, Facebook.

[capableweb]

Agree! None of these specifications are required to be implemented. They are there to cover the use cases outlined in the specifications themselves, so feel free to pick and chose which ones to follow. Obviously it's better for the open web if you use them when you're implementing something for your use case, rather than coming up with a new specification that is similar but incompatible.

But as you say, if you're implementing something that doesn't require global identifiers in a decentralized/distributed context, don't use DIDs :)