DeDi is trying to standardize how verifiers discover and check public information from authoritative registries. Its main target is not identity issuance alone, but the lookup and trust-establishment layer around public keys, revocations, memberships, sanctions, and licenses.
The core decomposition is namespace / directory / record. That structure makes the publication and trust model legible in a way many identity products do not.
The README and lab page both emphasize machine-readable lookup, provenance, tamper resistance, and freshness. DeDi is trying to make is this still valid and from a trusted source right now? cheap to answer.
The LFDT page is especially useful because it spells out protocol surfaces that matter analytically: URI semantics, transport separation, registry metadata, schema validation, signed manifests, revocation notifications, key rotation workflows, SDKs, clients, caching, test vectors, and sandbox tooling.
The public site’s DNS for trust framing is not just marketing shorthand; it captures the design goal of a reusable lookup layer that many verifiers can consume without building bespoke integrations for each source.
The materials also reveal an important split between open protocol and hosted implementation. dedi.global is a ready-to-use platform, but the protocol is framed as open infrastructure, which makes governance, replication, default hosting, and trust-list policy part of the real control surface.
Specific source signals worth retaining
The protocol README is the best concise explanation of the problem DeDi is solving: fragmented public registries make authenticity and validity checks expensive and slow.
The README is also the clearest source for the namespace / directory / record model and for the claim that DeDi should coexist with multiple data standards rather than replace them.
The LFDT page is the best source for the intended protocol stack and implementation roadmap, including signed manifests, revocation notifications, key rotation, client libraries, and public-authority pilots.
The public site is the best source for the operational framing: signed lookup responses, query/lookup endpoints, real-time update subscriptions, and practical registry types like public keys, membership lists, policy registries, and revocation records.
Why this entry belongs in the corpus
It gives the corpus a lower-layer trust-directory comparison point beneath credential, attestation, and identity products.
It helps separate source-of-truth publication, schema control, lookup transport, signature verification, revocation freshness, and hosted-platform governance.
The durable insight is that many identity and compliance systems quietly depend on a harder problem underneath them: discovering which registries are authoritative and what their latest signed state is.