Re: Revised Verifiable Claims WG Charter (RC-2) (was Re: Problem statement)

On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 at 01:51 Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 2016-08-10 17:47, Timothy Holborn wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 at 01:38 Anders Rundgren <
> anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com <mailto:anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>>
> wrote:
> >
> >     On 2016-08-10 17:04, Timothy Holborn wrote:
> >     > A Fundamental promise that has existed for years, is that you can
> goto a website and say, your an adult, and that is all.
> >     >
> >     > if what has developed since cannot do that, then it should be
> seriously considered by stakeholders.
> >
> >     This is a research topic since more than a decade back.
> >
> >     Microsoft and IBM have spent big bucks on developing products but
> AFAICT with very modest success.
> >     https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/project/u-prove/
> >     http://www.research.ibm.com/labs/zurich/idemix/
> >
> >     For dynamically generated claims this is technically trivial.
> >
> >     For static credentials you need the quite intricate cryptography
> featured in the Microsoft and IBM schemes.
> >
> >
> > cryptographic methods are out of scope.
>
> Then the only viable alternative for selective disclosure of private
> information are dynamically server-generated claims.
>
> I can't find the public URL's to the original designs, best i can do for
now is: http://manu.sporny.org/2014/credential-based-login/

The idea of server-generated claims URL's seems entirely BS[1].
Furthermore, it doesn't seem to support the provenience of the works or
indeed interest generated by stakeholders who've been about for longer than
a few moments.

What's most concerning is the means in which the concerns raised by Wendy
(representing W3C) are in-turn being responded to, and what the impact of
that might be.  I think a lack of understanding about a few things; may
diminish our capacity to do something meaningful.


> Anders
>
> Tim.H.
 [1] http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=BS

>
>  > I respect those i may refer
>  > to as the 'sages' with regard to their views on such consideration.
>  > Yet, what we have within scope of this CG/TF/outcome - i'd hope we do
> properly.
> >
> >
> >     Anders
> >
> > Tim.H.
>
>