W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > November 2014

Re: Digital Signatures for Credentials

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 21:02:15 -0500
Message-ID: <546E9D27.1010309@digitalbazaar.com>
To: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>, public-credentials@w3.org, public-socialweb@w3.org, St├ęphane Boyera <boyera@w3.org>
On 11/19/2014 02:30 PM, Harry Halpin wrote:
> There is no debate. JOSE is a standard for JSON that has had high 
> review and adoption from the IETF. SM is a proposed specification 
> from a Community Group for RDF that is out of scope for the Social 
> Web WG, although conceivably some future WG at the IETF could find 
> their normalization algorithm useful.

It's not the place of a W3C staff contact to declare victory and shut
down a debate. You're overstepping your authority, Harry.

Clearly, people are arguing about JOSE vs. SM. There is a debate, even
if you don't want there to be one.

Here are the points where I agree with you:

* Standardizing SM via Social Web WG is clearly out of scope of the
  charter. No one has asked Social Web WG to take on that work.
* The RDF Graph Normalization stuff will happen in a group that cares
  about that sort of thing, not in the Social Web WG.
* It's probably not worth debating whether or not RDF Graph
  Normalization or SM is going to happen in the Social Web WG.

However, stating that JOSE is the obvious choice for digital signatures
in the Social Web WG, the Web Payments CG, the Credentials CG, the
Linked Data Platform, or even the Web Payments IG is very far from
reality and you'll find that there will be considerable push-back if the
Social Web WG tries to railroad the use of JOSE through on something
that touches Linked Data.

> For the Social Web WG, as regards JSON, we will use JOSE as SM is out
> of scope as its not part of our deliverables. If another WG 
> standardizes SM (which I would be doubtful of), then I'm happy to 
> reconsider.

It's not for you alone to decide which digital signature mechanism the
Social Web WG is going to use. W3C operates on consensus, and there is
currently no consensus on which digital signature mechanism would be
best. It's highly inappropriate of a W3C staff contact (you) to assert
that a group /will/ use a particular technology, especially when that
very "decision" is being challenged by multiple people in the community.

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: The Marathonic Dawn of Web Payments
http://manu.sporny.org/2014/dawn-of-web-payments/
Received on Friday, 21 November 2014 02:02:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 July 2018 21:19:21 UTC